The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem T October 25, 1999 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR - BIXBY LONG BEACH PROJECT - CITY OF LONG BEACH SUMMARY OF REQUEST Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter. Receive and File Staff Report. DISCUSSION The City has received a copy of the "Notice of Preparation -Draft Environmental Impact Report— Bixby Long Beach Project". This document indicates the City of Long Beach will prepare a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and is requesting comments from responsible agencies, other agencies, and the general public, as to what should be covered in the DEIR. The DEIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposed mixed-use project that will consist of the following major project components: O 524 attached residential units on approximately 50 acres; home sizes will range from 1,000 to 2,400 square feet and will be attached in groups of 2, 3 and 4 units. Primary access to the residential development will be from Westminster Avenue and Studebaker Road; O 440,000 square feet of business park on approximately 28 acres; the development will comprise 15 different building footprints ranging from approximately 16,000 to 56,000 square feet each. Access will be provided by Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road, and Shopkeeper Road; O 111 acres of restored and enhanced wetlands; and 7- AGENDA ITEM C:\My Documents\CEQMBixby Long Beach Project NOP,CC Staff Report.doc1LM10-14-99 City Council Comment Letter re: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR- Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long Beach City Council Staff Report October 25, 1999 o the extension of Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. The comment period on the NOP will close on November 6, 1999. Due to the close proximity of the proposed project to the City of Seal Beach, the proposed project would appear to generate several areas of environmental concern to the City of Seal Beach. Staff has prepared a draft response letter for the consideration of the City Council, provided as Attachment 1, which sets forth those concerns. Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts: Staff has provided as Attachment 2, a complete copy of the NOP, which provides an overview of the proposed project, location and site plan maps of the proposed project, and the required environmental checklist with discussion of the determinations set forth in the environmental checklist. In addition, the NOP was provided earlier to the City Council to allow additional time to review the NOP document. Comment Period: • The comment period on the NOP will conclude on November 6, 1999. Written comments may be submitted to: City of Long Beach Attn: Environmental Officer Department of Planning and,Building 333 W. Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Public Availability: A copy of the NOP is available at the Department of Development Services for review. Future City Actions: Staff has prepared a response letter for consideration of the City Council relative to the Notice of Preparation (Refer to Attachment 1). Due to the time limits for receiving comments, this matter has not been reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board. The next meeting of the EQCB is October 27 and it appears there will not be a quorum for that meeting. Even if the Board Bixby Long Beach Project NOP,CC Staff Report 2 City Council Comment Letter re: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR- Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long Beach City Council Staff Report October 25, 1999 were to meet on October 27, the next City Council meeting is on November 8, after the deadline for receipt of comments. Therefore, the matter is before the City Council at this time for action. Upon completion of the Draft EIR by the City of Long Beach, both the EQCB and the City Council will review the EIR document, with a formal comment letter regarding the Draft EIR being approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter. Receive and File Staff Report. NOTED AND APPROVED � R Whittenberg, Director Keith R. Till Development Services Departmen City Manager Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Draft Response Letter re: "Initial Study/Notice of Preparation - Draft Environmental Impact Report-Bixby Long Beach Project", prepared by the City of Long Beach, received by City of Seal Beach on October 6, 1999 Attachment 2: "Initial Study/Notice of Preparation - Draft Environmental Impact Report - Bixby Long Beach Project", prepared by the City of Long Beach, complete document, 33 pages Bixby Long Beach Project NOP,CC Staff Report 3 City Council Comment Letter re: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR- Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long Beach City Council Staff Report October 25, 1999 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - BIXBY LONG BEACH PROJECT', PREPARED BY THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, RECEIVED BY CITY OF SEAL BEACH ON OCTOBER 6, 1999 Bixby Long Beach Project NOP,CC Staff Repoli 4 -g,51;17;";,.?fr'iek:.1;-;:31.;4:--'-~-4';YZ:4- .:4::qt.: :::?; ;;4::;:g7;e:i7-1:::--5::4:-.6i''-!-.?44:':-:72,:;;-:".'-"'f'' ::1:::::!..i.iii:r;rif'&-ig.4..;4;:_":Z.P4',;,11-:::::;.-;::::7::'s l' '"'";q.rfAlti‘k::.,:.-.2-z::_- ir-::-.';:i t� T xi,D � �:::,.; x t :::•::::_-\.:,.:-;;;;,,, r pip la i ,4, a Y 5 ._:,.,_,_,*,,,A,:,„.,,,,,41: ::::::: is FA L! "` ' M t 2 f� x- 4 Yf ^S t f �a i..� -. z ht 4 < ..x , -" 4 ti ,� .ti3,,, s, 5>, r 1 c FSK t (- .� r x ti 6,k'r=g €y, c t . a�'t a v. 1 .+.. .,. -- �:-.0 5 -cam j t ' �, ,Z-a " ::+nn s i ;_ f P. M` -� - } }i } x= rt � .C f :rte -..4t 'y`�,y'k 1 m -91 ,' s,`.rh r ri ,/ .isr l Ypi.2-tk "r fi ¢ ' }dbP -V;; ; uze l xqtra. ; r'r4�z `�T kAtit #t} rrnAiwe1h� � `-" 1 , / .�4n>M„�� ^ �i,�r a 7a¢ J � �vti "# � � � n 7 "'� =�� ,,,d October 25, 1999 • City of Long Beach Attn: Gerhardt Felgemaker, Environmental Manager Department of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR - "Bixby Long Beach Project" Dear Mr. Felgemaker: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Preparation and has several general comments and observations relative to the document, which are set forth below. The City of Seal Beach is concerned that several important sections of the document, particularly Air Quality, and Traffic and Circulation, focus only on Long Beach, and does not appear to propose to fully consider and evaluate potential impacts to the City of Seal Beach, which is immediately adjacent. It is our position that impacts in the below mentioned areas of concern will not stop at a county boundary line, but may, . and probably will, extend into our community as well. The City of Seal Beach in particular, would seem to be in a position to experience impacts from the proposed project, particularly in the area of"Traffic and Circulation”. Provided below are our concerns regarding the information and discussion within Sections 3 and 4 of the NOP: SECTION 3- ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. AESTHETICS: • C:\My Documents\CEQA\Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter.doc\LW\10.25-99 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR-Bixby Long Beach Project October 25, 1999 Item 1.d - Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area? Concern of the City of Seal Beach: The Environmental Evaluation Checklist indicates "less than significant impact". We feel that response is improper, given the increase in nighttime lighting sources immediately adjacent to the proposed wetland restoration areas, and therefore the potential for impacts to wetland habitat species. 2. AIR QUALITY Item III.a - Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Concern of the City of Seal Beach: The Environmental Evaluation Checklist indicates "less than significant impact". We feel that response is improper, given the current "non-attainment" status of the South Coast Air Basin for several criteria air pollutants. Any development will obstruct attainment with the Air Quality Management Plan. The DEIR should clearly indicate the impacts of the project, both construction-related and project- related, rojectrelated, to the non-attainment status of the region. While the incremental pollutants may not be "significant" given the overall scope of the air quality problems within the region, the DEIR should clearly indicate any increase in pollutants will result in an "obstruction" to the implementation of the adopted Air Quality Management Plan. This should result in the preparation of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations", in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. SECTION 4-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. AESTHETICS: Item 1.d - Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area? Concern of the City of Seal Beach: Please refer to the "Concern" regarding this item discussed regarding Section 3 above. In addition, the visual analysis should include long-range views from Seal Beach Boulevard at the entrance to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and from Gum Grove Park, as views of portions of the proposed project are provided from these locations within the City of Seal Beach. Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter 2 • City of Seal Beach Convnent Letter re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR-Birby Long Beach.Project • October.25, 1999 • • • 2. AIR QUALITY Item.III.a - Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the • applicable air quality plan? Concern of the City of Seal Beach: • Please refer to the "Concern" regarding this item discussed regarding Section 3, above. In addition, given the general prevailing winds from the project site, the DEIR should evaluate potential adverse air quality impacts upon the wetland eco- system anticipated to be in existence due to the restoration project, particularly on the vegetation varieties proposed for the restoration project. 3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items IV.a through c - The NOP indicates the DEIR will evaluate the status of the area as a potential wetlands, the affect that future development will have on wetlands restoration, and that the future development may be in conflict with Coastal Act policy regarding permitted uses and activities in wetlands. Concern of the City of Seal Beach: The City of Seal Beach has approved the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which provides for 23.1 acres restored saltwater wetlands immediately across the San Gabriel River from the proposed project. The DEIR should conduct its evaluation of the potential for wetland restoration on the subject property, including the cumulative impacts of the approved wetland restoration within the City of Seal Beach. The analysis should include the potential cumulative impacts upon endangered plant and animal species of a larger wetland system.near the mouth of the San Gabriel River, and in conjunction with the existing wetland resources existing at the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and within other areas identified within the Los Cerritos Wetlands LCP. The potential long-range, beneficial, and cumulative impacts of an expanded wetland eco-system within this area should be thoroughly considered as a project alternative. In addition, conflicts with the Coastal Act should be clearly identified, and appropriate mitigation measures such as avoidance of non-permitted uses within the wetland areas identified. The City of Seal Beach has previously provided the "Final Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan", prepared by Moffatt & Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter 3 • • City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR-Bixby Long Beach Project October 25, 1999 Nichol Engineers, Coastal Resources Management and Michael Brandman Associates, dated November 1996. 4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Item VI.a, I through iii - The NOP indicates that the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone traverses the south-central portion of the site; that the fault has a relative high potential for surface rupture; that the site is subject to severe ground shaking; portions of the site were a landfill area; and has significant liquefaction, subsidence and soil expansion potential. Concern of the City of Seal Beach: Given the various geologic constraints identified in the NOP, this portion of the EIR document should be a thorough as possible, based on recent soil investigations of the site and utilization of the most recent seismic analysis tools available. What is the anticipated maximum credible earthquake, and its related ground-shaking intensity,•on this portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault?• How are those factors magnified by the existence of high liquefaction and landfill soils known to be present on the site? It is very important to adequately define the potential geologic impacts of the Newport-Inglewood Fault on the proposed project; to. clearly establish the thresholds of significance; and to consider a wide range of mitigation measures, including increased setbacks from the identified Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. 5. NOISE Item XLa, c and d - The NOP indicates potentially significant noise problems are anticipated related to construction and operation of the proposed project. Concern of the City of Seal Beach: The DEW should conduct an evaluation of noise impacts, including effects on breeding and nesting of endangered and non-endangered species in the restored wetland areas, particularly late-night/early morning project traffic, delivery vehicle noise, and parking lot sweeping operations upon the wetland restoration areas which are located close-to the proposed project. Noise can carry in a direct line, and sound wall mitigation may be necessary to effectively protect the restored wetland areas from newly created late night/early morning noises from the proposed project. . 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter 4 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: • • Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR-Bixby Long Beach Project October 25, 1999 The *NOP indicates the DEW will evaluate the traffic report to determine the project's impact on surrounding roadways. Concern of the City of Seal Beach: The 'City of Seal Beach requests the traffic analysis impacts include those intersections within the City which are impacted in accordance with.the County of Orange Growth Management standards, which utilizes 1,700 vehicles per hour for lane capacity and a clearance interval of 0.05. In addition, the project description includes the extension of Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue to Pacific • Coast Highway. The bridge at the San Gabriel River that is approximately 400' distant is limited to two lanes. The roadway improvements proposed may result in necessary lane increases, which will cause significant merge and safety problems that should be addressed in the FIR as well as by Caltrans. The impacts upon the San Gabriel River bridge and the Pacific Coast Highway transportation corridor from the proposed project and all other cumulative projects within this area of Long Beach, including the Selleck project, and other projects within Los Alamitos Bay,.should be thoroughly addressed. The impacts of the increased traffic from all appropriate projects in the City of Long Beach, the previously approved Hellman Ranch project`within the City of Seal Beach, along with cumulative traffic impacts of regional trip increases upon the merge condition at the San Gabriel River bridge and traffic capacity along Pacific Coast Highway, Westminster Avenue and the Marina Drive Bridge should be thoroughly analyzed and proposed mitigation measures clearly set forth to resolve those problems. The DEW will not be adequate without discussion of the cumulative effects of traffic impacts on Pacific Coast Highway, the I-405 Freeway, Westminster Avenue, 76 Street, and Studebaker Road at the County boundary line, and as far distance from the County boundary line as is appropriate given the criteria set forth in the first paragraph of this comment. We wish to emphasize that vehicular access to the College Park West neighborhood in Seal Beach is through Studebaker Road and 76 Street. In addition, the future reduction in lane. capacity of the Marina Drive Bridge should be reflected in the traffic analysis, not the current lane capacity.• • The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan was anticipated to generate an additional 2,390 total additional daily trips, 'with approximately 1,100 of those trips crossing the San Gabriel River Bridge. The subject DEAR should quantify the anticipated daily and peak-hour morning and evening trips crossing the San Gabriel River bridge from the proposed project and the Selleck project and propose mitigation measures to reduce those impacts upon the bridge and other intersections within the City of Seal Beach to a level of insignificance. • Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter 5 • City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR-Bixby Long Beach Project • October 25, 1999 1 • The City of Seal Beach has previously provided to your office a copy of the Traffic. Study for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, prepared by- RKJK, revised October 17, 1996. If you require an additional copy of this.document, please contact the Department of Development Services. The City Council considered and discussed the NOP document on October 25, 1999, and authorized the Mayor to sign this letter, representing the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. • Thank you for 'your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431-2527, extension 313, if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide four (4) copies of the Draft EIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, so the City can have a copy available at City-Hall and at each library within the City available for public review during the public comment period. Sincerely, -/°g Paul Yost, Mayor • City of Seal Beach Distribution: • Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission • Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager Director of Development Services • • • Bixby Long Beach Project NOP.CC Letter 6 City Council Comment Letter re: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR- Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long Beach City Council Staff Report October 25, 1999 ATTACHMENT 2 "INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - BIXBY LONG BEACH PROJECT', PREPARED BY THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, COMPLETE DOCUMENT, 33 PAGES Bixby Long Beach Project NOP,CC Staff Report 11 NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Responsible Agency FROM: City of Long Beach Trustee Agency Dept. of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The City of Long Beach will be the Lead Agency and Michael Brandman Associates will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the E1R when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project location and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is attached.Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after the receipt of this notice. Please send your response to: City of Long Beach Department of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Environmental Officer CITY OF SEAL BEACH Should you have any questions,please call: Thomas F.Holm OCT _ 6 099 Michael Brandman Associates 15901 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 DcF,, th%;- Tustin, CA 92780 cE<<E�; ;:;Lq, _r�c�F (714)258-8100 We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. PROJECT TITLE: Bixby Long Beach Property PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of approximately 189 acres at the southeastern edge of the City of Long Beach. The irregular shaped site is bounded to the north by Los Cerritos Channel and Loynes Drive,to the south by Westminster Avenue, and Shopkeeper Road,to the east by Studebaker Road,and to the west by Pacific Coast Highway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This mixed-use project will consist of 524 attached residential units, and approximately 440,000 square feet of business park within 15 different building footprints ranging from approximately 16,000 to 56,000 square feet each. Home sizes will range from approximately 1,000 to 2,400 square feet and will be attached in groups of two,three, and four units. Primary access to the residential development will be from Westminster Avenue and Studebaker Road. Access to the business park will be provided by Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road, and Shopkeeper Road. Of the total 189 acres at the site, approximately 111 acres will consist of wetland areas that will be restored and enhanced through implementation of the proposed project. Alternatives to the proposed project consist of reduced density residential development, reduced business park development, mobile home/manufactured housing development, and variations on the wetland restoration plan, including a maximum wetlands restoration plan. BIXBY LONG BEACH PROPERTY. INITIAL STUDY Prepared for: City of Long Beach Department of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 • and Bixby Ranch Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740-2750 Contact: R. Stewart Honeyman, Jr. (562) 493-1475 Prepared By: Michael Brandman Associates 15901 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 Contact: Thomas F. Holm, AICP (714) 258-8100 ... . August 1999 Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1-1 2 INTRODUCTION 2-1 Purpose 2-1 Project Location 2-1 Project Description 2-2 Intended Use of This Document 2-4 Environmental Setting 2-4 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3-1 4 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-1 5 REFERENCES 5-1 h:ciien1/2223n2230001.LC i Table of Contents Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Conceptual Land Use Table 2-2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Follows Exhibit Page 1 Regional Location Map 1-3 2 Aerial Photo 1-3 3 Conceptual Site Plan 2-2 h:client/2223/22230001.LC ii Table of Contents Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study SECTION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Bixby Long Beach Property 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Long Beach Department of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach,CA 90802 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas F.Holm,AICP Michael Brandman Associates • (714)258-8100 4. Project Location: City of Long Beach at Pacific Coast Highway and Westminster Avenue(see Exhibit 1) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bixby Ranch Company • 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740-2750 6. General Plan Designation: , Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan(SEADIP)Specific Plan 7. Zoning: . SEADIP Specific Plan—Planned Development • 8. Description of Project: This mixed-use project will consist of 524 attached residential units and a total of approximately 440,000 square feet of business • park within 15 different building footprints, ranging from. approximately 16,000 to 56,000 square feet each. Home sizes will range from approximately 1,000 to 2,400 square feet and will be attached in groups of two, three, and four units. Primary access to the residential development will be from Westminster Avenue . and Studebaker Road. Access to the business park will be provided by Studebaker Road, and the extension of Shopkeeper Road. Of the total • • 189 acres at the site,approximately I 1 1 acres will consist of wetland areas that will be restored and enhanced through implementation of the proposed project. Existing oil extraction activities on the.site will be consolidated within one or more small consolidation sites (e.g., 2.5 to 5.0 acres). Actions identified to achieve approval of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, 1) a geographically specific zoning application to confirm and implement the SEADIP Plan (i.e., Specific Plan and planned • h:client12223n2230001.LC 1-1 Environmental Checklist Form • Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study development ordinance)as the zoning for the site; 2) an amendment of the City's approved local coastal program (LCP), for the site, and 3) General Plan (map) amendment to designate the project area as Land Use District 7 — "Mixed Use". Alternatives to the proposed project consist of reduced density residential development (i.e. single family detached homes), reduced business park development, mobile home/ manufactured housing development, and variations on the wetland restoration plan, including a maximum wetlands restoration plan, and a (marina) concept with a boat launch,dock facilities, and supporting recreational uses. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Exhibit 2. The project site is bounded to the north by Los Cerritos Channel, a mobile home park and Loynes Drive; to the south by Westminster Avenue which bisects the property, the future extension of Shopkeeper Road and the Marketplace Office Park; to the east by Studebaker Road; and to the west by the Marketplace Shopping Center, Pacific Coast Highway, and Marina Pacifica Mall. In addition to the Los Cerritos Channel, other water bodies surrounding the project include the San Gabriel River to the south of the site and Alamitos Bay/Marine Stadium to the west. The communities of Belmont Shore and Naples are located further west of the project site, and the Edison Company's Regional Electrical Generating Plant to the east. The project site has been extensively developed for oil production facilities that date back to the 1920's, and has been significantly affected by the construction of major adjoining roadways, as well as the diking, filling and channelization of the San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel. In addition, two historical landfills previously operated in the project area. The Studebaker-Loynes Landfill site is located north of the Los Cerritos Channel and along Studebaker Road, while the Market Place Landfill site is located at the southern portion of the property, east of Coast Highway and north of the San Gabriel River. Within the site, a tidal wetlands of approximately 20 acres is separated from the oil field by a berm, and connected to the Los Cerritos Channel. h:client/2223/22230001.LC 1-2 Environmental Checklist Form Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study • • 10. Other public agencies whose approval State and, Federal agencies including, but not is required (e.g., permits, financing limited to: California Coastal Commission, U.S. approval, or participation agreement.): Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water • Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. l NWIRONME iTAL FACTORS POTEN TALLY AFFECTED .: . . The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological ® Cultural Resources ® Geology/Soils ® Hazards &Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use/Planning ® Mineral Resources ® Noise ® Population/Housing ® Public Services • ® Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Utilities/Services Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance • 6:cienU2223/22230001.Lc • 1-3 Environmental Checklist Form % / ' ' . el PASADENA ` IV'. • t i. ;; i V Los ,. MONTEREY MP- AN •PARK r / ,' MONTBELLO - � © . •,µ40NC r.•1 •HUNTINGTON • WHITTER,' • 7 PARK / �V • d L9 CI .• .• . ;SANTA FE _ Los Angeles, County... - WI:. PRINGS :HABRA O�Cnge Courtly '•`�y� / 13 © `� , o. COMPTONNai MIRADA • ' • :C'�• - - l` CERRITOS• • • FULLERTON PLACENTIA '< C i © ` • • •CARSON © 0 • • 1• . LAKEWOOD \ i • CI CYPRESS Q • • STANTON ORANGE tell_ GARDEN • • LONG BEACH _ GROVE 0.1111111 A.1. SEAL i /4 SANTA . >`f • \ ANA• •nu PROJECT \ LOCATION Q Q HUNTINGTON � Y- •IRVINE BEACH COMESASTA - • AL NEWPO- BEACH \16.-"":"\4411111 ` \ . NNN9 r#� Exhibit 1 � �� M`� Michael Regional LocationMichael Bru�dman AssaduaMap 22230001•8/99 BIXBY PROPERTY•CITY OF LONG BEACH • 4rie11111r1 -.4 1., �'.. , _ : •,74„x.. . .... it. 21g + 0.444" slr} .;•:i� dot 1p «!lea.t� 1.' } , • It —lug i s " ' :: + U I. L i7.w �'? - .. - _..:. , 1wiy, : , . • -�W . ima4.4 .'_. ....,... • ... . _ iis.4.. 10 •1'. •• 'Z • J%. .; i f mil / 14.1 '` - fr VI /fi • '�Hi"�•f' y��'J -1.'� I �• , ,• , _-• - ` Y.1^.!�-' - '.' . , •• I 4.0-a.• � 0- 41, :Vit: �: :'+ II•�.!k1. •• - -, •ii ' .'• - - ' ' r• -01.,: 15-..:i.. ._..c..........., ,....\ __ .. ., ,. .. ...._ . e . •, .. • , ...`g.....w. A I. .-.1"‘ N. —-:--- .- l'it'Fat- dif,-.44-• *•",* ".•..i 'JO i i.- -7.., J-, � y:--••t ,-0.- • f\ Y .,r9c.� ,r: ter. ii 4"; t, �`,1�+ 'sitr +. .+;r 4 , e"�' 1 • ( .1,sir .Iv Jo • rt I jil •-• 1 ,,,1:,:.,i.--..;,T.,... - - z— I r. •..... 0. 0„ ‘ i J i 1•+ 1-1 '~ • _ \- -!.Tgi% � ` fit. ~ a ,�, �7T •�. ,, . orscs 4 .r ' ..:. f :::- A kvis _, it. fl...,11..\. I...$,-. m.......,:::::;.,.[l.I.. ,1 12"- -4 f : ç �' -1 r., ** ' . r... . `r ' • ?j i _ -....„-t S� • - ' • . . �� •,r� /•_ : •7 • „ r ��.-i" ; - ti., ay :. 01y , 4. -:. 7? ,.i. • .:14 • ' ..-; .'' ' • •••• lk,41,,, - i...., ••• - • $ •• f ',.. + •`-..-1-424-4",:r.;.:',.--..4;. -.. c'.7••-:'! ! . • , \ s,a 1- ''..- - ".:'.1-•''''Ir" . ' ' ' �' y ". G �. - w :ice i'� Vic. o - x^= LT... •SOURCE:FORMA. N%%1%1Exhibit 2 Maui Brandmn Associates Aerial Photograph 22230001.8199 BIXBY PROPERTY•CITY OF LONG BEACH Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study DETERMINATION: On the basis ofthis initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the.environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ ( I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have'been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature D to Thomas F.Holm City of Lone Beach Printed Name For Gerhardt H.Felgemaker Environmental Officer h:client/2223/22230001.LC 1-4 Environmental Checklist Form Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the initial study is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 524 attached residential units and an approximately 444,000-square-foot business park on a 189-acre site at the southeastern edge of the City of Long Beach. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines,the City of Long Beach ("City") is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Initial Study and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The City has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the project Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and to provide the basis for input from members of the public and public agencies. Actions identified to achieve approval of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, 1) a geographically specific zoning application to confirm and implement the SEADIP Plan (i.e., Specific Plan and planned development ordinance) as the zoning for the site; 2) an amendment of the City's approved local coastal program(LCP),for the site,and 3)General Plan(map)amendment to designate the project area as Land Use District 7 — "Mixed Use". This Initial Study provides a preliminary assessment of both project construction activities and operational characteristics (e.g., traffic, noise, etc.)resulting from approval of the proposed project. The remainder of this section provides a description of the project location and the characteristics of the proposed project. Section 3 includes an environmental checklist that gives an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Section 4 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental.checklist, providing justification for the responses provided on the environmental checklist. Section 5 provides a list references in preparing this document. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 189-acre project site is located at the southeastern edge of City of Long Beach(see Exhibit 1). The irregular shaped project site is bounded on the north by the Los Cerritos Channel and Loynes Drive,to the south by Westminster Avenue, and Shopkeeper Road, to the east by Studebaker Road, and to the west by Pacific Coast Highway (see Exhibit 2). The project site occurs within the Local Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Commission,'and is adjacent to numerous water bodies.In addition to the Los Cerritos Channel,water bodies surrounding the project include the San Gabriel River to the south of the site and Alamitos Bay/Marine Stadium across Pacific Coast h:cient/2223r22230001.LC 2-1 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study Highway to the west. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately one mile southwest of the project site. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implementation of the proposed project involves the development of approximately 524 attached residential units, and approximately 440,000 square feet of Business Park (see Exhibit 3). Residential units at the site would be attached in groups of two, three, and four units and would range from approximately 1,000 to 2,400 square feet. Each residential building would conform to the 2-story,35- foot maximum height envelope prescribed for the area. Development of the Business Park would consist of 15 separate building footprints, ranging from approximately 16,000 to 56,000 square feet, and resulting in approximately 33% land coverage. Buildings within the Business Park would be a mixture of one- and two-story elements, and would be within the 35-foot maximum height envelope for the area. Development at the project site is guided by the City of Long Beach 1,500-acre South East Area Development and Improvement Plan(SEADIP) Specific Plan and a Planned Development Ordinance, which regulate properties within the SEADIP. The SEADIP divides the 189-acre site into five different planning areas, as noted on Table 1 below. As shown on Table 1, residential and business park development planned at the site would be limited to 78 acres, with the remaining 111 acres consisting of restored wetlands and habitat. The conceptual site plan is essentially consistent with the development standards set forth in the SEADIP Specific Plan and Planned Development Ordinance. TABLE 1 CONCEPTUAL LAND USE TABLE SEADIP Area PERMITTED LAND USE ACRES Percent 11 (a) Residential 50 26% 23 Wetlands/Habitat Restoration 9 5% 24 Wetlands Restoration/ 2 1% Interpretive Center 25 Business Park 28 15% 33 Wetlands/Habitat Restoration 100 53% TOTAL ALL 189 100% Primary access to the residential community would be from Westminster Avenue and Studebaker Avenue. The Westminster Avenue entry will incorporate a landscaped median, and units along Studebaker Road will be buffered by a greenbelt approximately 100 feet deep. Home sites will be served by an internal collector road with a 40-foot-wide paved section, as well as local roadways and driveways that provide access to individual homes and parking areas throughout the residential portion h:client/2223R2230001.LC 2-2 Environmental Evaluation • ' . . . ........_ ..........---.-_____................. ...ovum.:.41.0PpErre.A.Areb lb. ire. ...-=-- .., : -... .;;:4,.... •,.__ IMADP Me 22. '' ...: .4?-•••:, "- . • LAI 11111T01141101 -: ... „...,_ 7;;-.••:.:1,..---,,H.._.-":"._.,.;lle„t_:!:.,.:_',ir74.11:74::....._.':'::..,j1.11,„....::.,-...r_._._-i_..1:.1:17..l.:.:..__t„:..'il_...iei_....::;:._.:::,z(,'..,..:::__1:-',o..... MIA : _................ * .....„ . 11/40P i•••MI ----------,,,________:s., . 1 WILMA FOIT011ATC41 AMIA * - . -- _ . ......,..: -.T.; , .......5,- -1....s,V-"+.‘*4.-.-.-e •1... .4.........--...,--. ..... .........----.-:-......_....._,..---.....,' -,..-t- :,...-..-...ft; -..... •-•,,. _....--.-,s_ „I, 1111111 ..,.....".....4 . . I, - .. .., , ...,.-....., , .._,..,.....::1 ---- - - ' -... , - .-.' '- - - ...... • ....,Z . ...-.--... .: -• .."-e"-'.• ......-• ) ;•#''' . , . • -li-...111k....„"... .„*.,-.,-;-.,„.,...-----•._._ -'-':..,...c3,,..-_,..1 7:- _.„..:.-t...,..,,,... .'*-.--`..,:'''..•.,, ••• - l'.`--...... . ,, - "-•..,..0.*--; . ...e." ...- - , . -. • -:-..‘..-...-•- - : '. ------•_ -- ...,, . ?"7:- "..".._.:-"--......t.-:,....3:-..r.. ...---'..'„:- . • . . .... il! - -4-...•• .. - = ...... .,_„„.....•-...„,......,....1, .-,..-' _- ,. .,..... - -. .. • .,- . ; ,...-:-.. i --. •.„,.,.., •,-...... . ,• :-:- -; , -0---- 1:-'N. .. ..... , .. . . . .... ..,......„---_, . . , .- .., ... . _ .• • I - c • .• -- . 0 : ........._ .. .,_.,..„.....,..... , _ ...._..„..._..._............_„..,.. ...,.. ......_....,____........._:„..._ . •:.. _., ......,.... , _ ei .. .. , . ...-.. -:.. N • . L__:`•=---,---..„..„-.--..".:-.,:-...„.-:-----,..... _ ...... .! ... . . . ........t.. ; . i':7:::' ::27:1::;h.c..7;: :: :1T:r7" 7 '' Z .... ., .,• a .. / .9,01\' v • • - ' . ;...n -.,.. ..? - ,.,...‘..t:-....„....4-.: ''. • .. •• .'• 0 .. . \ •• ._ _ .. •, , .. ...- ..,..„.. f:,.*:...:...., 0..: ..0.-.....,..,..N.0-44::". : .. . .--, _.. .. •. . ,. _-.. • _. __ . e / . .., _ .._---- ,„.,..-.% , -_ .. .. • . - _ ,. .. , -..-.--. .-.,._. ._ L ,.. - _ N., . . ... - -,- . . . .... ' % ... „.... .--i-, ' ,...„ :if."14:....1.%':.„.-.4.„,..,....."...,,.."...-\ii,s1/4.:,-,,.....,=i7.4)...i.:.....ill:...1.,_77-.1.7f4..-77':,---r,.--...-I:-._i,...•-•1_,::.,—:-,,.:..,•,:::-,,:''' .—•„.4`.,-...—'...-,_.:..:,..z.-7.4:1::-; ;--.:.- 7::::---f f:-.",?--••.--4-,"--:::„.."0;1.(..--I''..-- ,..e. ee . . ,. ... .. ,,..A,p.N.. .6_1. , - - . ..‘,.., ... ...,... ti? , . --...-27' , -...-' .. „ -.-,--.. .. , .., -v.-- - . .. : .•)).">,..4 .-,->_. ... .,,, .IN, t.S.‘,..I. .... tr3 .,-- c v .,„ . •,,.. : .• ...., , .....,.••___-, .. - ,s ._r...• . . L :• . - .:' • $- -_,;.-1-- - . . ,-.. .-...•:- br•4241 1,1, „., %.41. , .... 11. ,'.. • \-.1 ...,:. ::::- .tli.5. bi .. % • • V... .„. .Skr--- -.Cele%....c.N....... ..-:,?..,,,, • . 11/1180ATIMI TO , ,•. . ,... „ . , ,.. _.„,,,, ,,,i.._. . •:. ,,,,,.-0:0,.. sti „.--.. ,..• \\ ,... .4. . ..t, - //ADP am lb •sa. .---Nr .04'/` •"-' - - l' .Ol.11 -e' NIIMDITPI. \ ...'.• . .4 i if>' i'1.4'4.-...-.:=., ,.kii.o...,-, 41/4 '4 440 - Z.I.el \ ;,...A. - . .. 7..., 1 --... -Iciii...1.-OR MOTO AMAPA . 740• ... gr4/7-4- -- k'tk,...r,•-,-- 3, -- .,..„..., ,,.. • !•• vii...._ . .. • -0'.-%,1V_ zi: •... - - --' •------1. , ',F.._ ------ - --• \7,Ve.,..4-0---- ,- ", , .,.,- ''' ,\•:, . . N.....,-' . .............. \.. z/..? % ,. ' • z A A- -.-. ., , 45'44,.. \•• ,,, &..,t - - .i. LAPILVIL/ELE , -•\<,.•4.- 7.•,---1 , .1; . ENV AMS LNILIZE MCA ITOIffr NOM. ‘..\\ \ ---- .K \. 7 I-I-- MO 111111111,111.MI 10 IIIIM ‘,. . . \.\ • es Illinois reTWATICIPI e es \\\\ - .,,, i f-... --- - •.% 14 VIETLMOS 1MTONA1M11 I /A s' \ °dr"1".7 .../, \l'‘`. ,_ IMOPPOM corm 115 11.1111MIS PAIN SA WI 1. . s.,.. / . 49'\ • - I 13 WW1=111110M1111111 MO /Mb TOTM. AL 1M 111011 el•••••••Ern WM NNW mil•••••••••••••••••1.1 MOS . •••mob*me•••••••••warm••• ••••••imam.•••••• -_ S••••1 Imo •••••almm mil 1•••••••••••••L•••• 41•111M•a IMPEND OEM ea il Ir.Pal••••••••••1•••••••••••••MI•MO.SIM=11.11•M 1111/1/6. 11.1M SIAM 0=le•110 Os Ur•Wu lona F./.•Os UP=MM.MS=MN. pi wen we lama /MOP Ales IS IpIp •\... Alang21 \, 9 . .4 — :r...„.:A 11 .11/11111.1101.41441f ' \\ ,..;.,...d.,11..." '' ,. -::.' ,, - • ...... A.A.PLASM AMs 10.1101011 • / /,urn.vol MIMI • - . ''.\ - - PA . :1/1"2..---- --- L? I. 1X 11/1/ ME Z ' . - ------1/41101.4111111.41/4 ' . • ',... as .—...—m.. ... . --14—...-14.— I' e - \ . .:' .../. ole "e'r"r" ..... 41t • . easeraortuniew //IMMLI1111 1/11/111/..11111/111/ • . • =Mk KO IIIIMMOCI • •••••L CaP0.••• SOuRCE:FORMA_ . . !ENVIE Q. 450 225 0 450 - Exhibit 3 3JISI i SCALE IN FEET Masi Bora=Amami , Conceptual Site Plan =0001•7/00 BIXBY PROPERTY•CITY OF LONG BEACH ' • 7.••••••••••••••••••••-•••••-", .......--............———.-......- —— • - •• —- Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study of the project site. Vehicular access to the Business Park will be provided by Studebaker Avenue and Shopkeeper Road. Off-street parking will include approximately 1,770 spaces based on four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Several public improvements would occur along with implementation of the proposed project, in accordance with the various elements of the Long Beach General Plan. These include: • Additional land dedication required for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1)to its ultimate width. • Completion of arterial roadway improvements adjacent to and within the site, including the extension of Studebaker Road between Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway as called for by the City's Major Roadways Improvement Plan. • Construction of adequate internal roadways and access points to serve the project, including the completion of Shopkeeper Road east of the existing Marketplace Shopping Center(to the extent that Shopkeeper Road is not completed under previous approvals). • Improvement of bikeways along Studebaker, Westminster Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway as set forth in the City's Bikeway Master Plan. The project is designed to respond to various environmental constraints associated with the site, including wetlands,'oilfield activities,and surface faulting. These project design features include: • Establishment of landscape buffers around the perimeter of the Wetlands Restoration Area to appropriately buffer the wetlands habitat from development. • Incorporation of a "non-wetland habitat corridor" as a flyway within Planning Areas 25 and l lb, extending from the San Gabriel River to Planning Area 33, at a width of 400 feet measured from the existing Market Place Shopping Center buildings in Planning Area 18 and including Shopkeeper Road. The specific requirements for building permitted within this flyway are set forth in the 1984-approved LCP.' • Avoidance and establishment of building setbacks from the Newport-Inglewood Fault that traverses the project area. • Incorporation of professional soils studies to ensure fully adequate foundation engineering and geotechnical design for buildings and structures within the project. • The consolidation and eventual natural phase out of oil wells and other petroleum extraction activities within the project area that have resulted in the filling and settlement of land within the oil field. A variety of safety, environmental, and ' NOTE: The 1984 Los Cerritos Wetlands LCP covering the project site was approved by the City of Long Beach,and only conditionally certified by the Coastal Commission subject to certain modifications by both the City of Long Beach and County of Los Angeles. The City subsequently adopted such modifications,though the County did not b:client/2223n2230001.LC 2-3 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study aesthetic considerations will be fully addressed in conjunction with the capping and safe abandonment of wells and related operations in the area. • The restoration of approximately one hundred acres to tidal wetlands, including the removal of a ten foot high berm that presently holds back the tidal flow of water from impacting the oil field. 2.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This Initial Study document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for eliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project following distribution of the Notice of Preparation(NOP)of the project EIR. The NOP will be circulated for a total of 30 days, during which period comments regarding the forthcoming EIR for the proposed project are invited to be sent to: City of Long Beach Department of Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Gerhardt Felgemaker,Environmental Officer 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the urbanized City of Long Beach, and consists of two distinct areas—one north of Westminster Avenue (approximately 159 acres), and one south of Westminster Avenue (approximately 30 acres). While most of the surrounding land uses are developed, the project site and surrounding areas contain important natural features related to the proximity to the coastal zone, which provide biological, recreational, and aesthetic value to the area. Various aquatic resources are located within or near the study area. These include 1) approximately 20 acres of tidal wetlands located onsite,connected to the adjacent offsite Los Cerritos Channel, 2)the San Gabriel River located to the south of the site, and 3) Alamitos Bay/Marine Stadium to the west. The coastal communities of Belmont Shore and Naples are located west of the project site. The Edison Company's Regional Electrical Generating Plant is located to the east of the site. Other specific uses adjacent or in close proximately along Pacific Coast Highway are the Marina Pacifica Mall,the Marketplace Shopping Center,and Marketplace Office Park. The project site is also constrained by several potential hazards at the site. The first is the existing and historic oilfield uses at the site, which have resulted in the presence of hazardous materials and oil and gas infrastructure (e.g., pipeline, wells, etc.) throughout the site. The site is also traversed by the Newport-Inglewood fault which roughly bisects the project site. Finally, the project site is in h:clienU 2223/22230001.LC 2-4 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study proximity to two landfills which previously operated within the project area. The first is the Studebaker-Loynes Landfill which consists of two sites located north of the Los Cerritos Channel and along Studebaker Road. The second landfill is the Market Place Landfill located in the southern portion of the property, east of Coast Highway and north of the San Gabriel River. • 6:client/2223/22230001.LC 2-5 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION • ENV tONMF.N'I`AL ISSUES s' nt n sruh > 'r m (see attachments for anformaUon sem$.:>:»::::>: im' racerpor.ted mpa.:'.: ..: .: +p ct L:.i AE'STHETICS Would t�a projeCL. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 ❑ 0 ❑ :>:: <:;::whether> ..:.::.ac <<.:,•'_< >;<;.>:.:::,.::.:.:;.:•;;: ..:.;;:<.>:•»>:.»::><:>< >:;:;:.::`> <> '< <'><<><><>> <> > > `>'<> >'< >`` > <> <<> >>< ............ ............ ...:::.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. r<> : Califor iia De of;Conse rvattc>tl: :;<::::::•;»:<::;::::.::..:.... .. ................. .... .g .a�a...n ...: .bore:;:;and;;:::.:<::::::.::................:.:::::::::::::................::::.::.;;:.;;:�;:.;:.;:::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:;<.: ....".Auld .the: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 0 ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ 0 0 • ::>cntena>>e I�slred:::: ••r•la••na err ent..ot 1 • _. 8rr.. 1 utton:controL;iths#rx�. :;.>:<:::.;;:.;;:.:............. :: >,,riClied • a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 ❑ 0 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 ❑ h:client/2223/22230001.LC 3-1 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study ie+a �n c:::;E:::::::e:;:`>?:>E:i>:;. .. ..:_.::>:::r:?..:;>;:::..:::.;::.::::..'>xiS::i:E,•'i`;::pyr;;?;;;c`;:s>:• r_ nificanj.::.; '.Miti -tio6. _...r? ..uant: No : ;(see attachments for information sources) Impact c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard • (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? l3 . O O Cl d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ® Cl Cl Cl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ® O 0 0 ; Y•...:::.:::.::BIOLOGICAL RE$dURCES Would the 0:.. ;::.::»?::>:><': >:>:>;>:>>:>:::>.............................. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or .special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? 13 O O 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ® O O O c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ® Cl O O d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? O Cl 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances . protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? O Cl Cl 121 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, - regional,or state habitat conservation plan? O O O El a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? O ® O O b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Cl 0 0 h:clientl2223R2230001.LC 3-2 Environmental Evaluation . Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study s+�ta ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES rcmn �y ........w ..rhe' (iee wt#achments for nfornsntion wttrces) ,, ,., ;.tm{au;': ;,,tncorporaso,...;.1n►�.a. inwK+.; c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ® 0 ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ 0 0 'L: GED a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 9 0 ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as • delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ® 0 ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? E1 0 0 ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including • liquefaction? H ❑ ❑ 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ 0 9 0 b) Result in •substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ® 0 ❑ 0 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 9 0 0 Cl d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ® ❑ Cl ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use 0 ❑ ❑ 0 of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VIL BAL4RDS AND HAZARDOUS 1iATERI tl1e. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 Cl ® ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 ® 0 Cl h:dienV2223r22230001.LC 3-3 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL I SI)ES T�teiitti i wren tRn ses :.� .::.::::::.:.:.;;;::.;;::::;;;:::..::;...;:.;:..::::.:.::::::<.::::::.:::;:;:.;»::>::::::::>:<:»::>:;::.�.::.:::::::;;.:• nlrfwnt .:... ^1•rki tion. ....:;:: esot>�... a ::;:.': :.:.�:.... ;:..:::.:><;:::.. ,:::;.;;:. :.;:.:<: .;•;;:.;:.:•:>::>;•:.:..:.:.:::::::::.:::.;;:.::.::.:::: .818 .:: ......:..:.:...:.:.Ro ._ (see attacbments'forinformationaon±ces) ?;;r'.':'.::='> ,.,:....1r►corporated _>irneoet. ;,:._ .rmp�e!'.: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or • acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or.proposed school? 0 - 0 ® 0 - d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 El ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use • plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two.miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard • • for people residing or working in the project area? 0 ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ . 0 Cl !3 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Cl 0 Cl a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 Cl ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or • interfere substantially with groundwater recharge • such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been panted? Cl Cl ® Cl c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? ® Cl Cl 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ' the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? 0 Cl Cl Cl • h:client/2223/22230001.LC 3-4 Environmental Evaluation • Bixby Long Beach Property initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL'ISS r tenua :.:wan»<>:: :.: - .�::<.;;:;:::.:•<> Signlfieaai Malga;iori �licrM' No ,. : ;(see*tfachmenfs.farinfo mation e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 ❑ 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® 0 ❑ 0 g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 H ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Cl ® ❑ Cl i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or.death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 H 0 ❑ j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 0 ❑ 9 ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ H b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 0 0 ❑ • regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? ❑ 0 • 0 9 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ 12.1 ❑ XL: .......:l!IOX5X. 1Y004 000i 0000$:0(1 .;:<.;;;:;;; a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® . ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ h:clien1/2223/22230001.LC 3-5 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study ..:.:............ sgrnta ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES P.tenuii6, - .:..' ...:::..: ;. 193tb Lets Then i.:::::r >:<::;<r•::::::<::: :$1gniReant: :...:;fit! east.... No :(ice attachmenfs for lnformAtiortsonms) ..; :Impact . ...: lncoc - :im.a..;: i�np : d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ® 0 ❑ 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 Cl ® 0 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 0 XIIPC1 JATIO1�t<: D:>,;.�.,,.... < . «.. :: O .:::::::::::.:.:..:..:..:.. ...:: : : : .AN1�0.I5ING :>:W.o..ul:;::.:.e< : . >:;:;;:.::::,;.::.;:>::>::::: ; : : : : :: : : ; : :: :: : ;; »: :<: : .: :.;::: :: ; ;::.;.:..:;; ; ; ;; :.:,.� : :: . . : : ..... . ::::: ::::::::::: ::. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 9 0 O O b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ O 0 c) Displace Substantial numbers of people necessitating O 0 0 9 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? iiiUBLIC. E :p:_ €:si': VICES...:..1ould e.; z ,:::: bsia �ti�i''"; ><:>:::>:»:>::>:>>::: ...............�hYslral.u�t aMs,aasoctat��th.::..:::.:::::::::................... <.:.:.:::.:;:.:.;. Durst ............... ........:::.P..::::::.� .............................::.:t�..::::: cal :.:::: < .::.:::.:>;:.;:.:::.;:.;::;.:i.:,.:,:.;.::.�.:: :: :;:::; ::.* :::: tat.faFxl `reed ::::::.:.:.:�::.;: .::::::::.:...::.:::::::::: ,::::::::... . ...:.yew::or;:: ... : ... ::..::.: .�:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:..........::.:�::::::::::::.�::.:::::::::::::::...:...... :><:::> :;::::::>::<:altere ...................... ... •... ..,,i....,..: ;. ..;...>o::.:.tni.::::,:::;:.:;;...A>;:>€:>i:€: :::>:>::>?::>::>':::::#:::<::>::`::»::><:::>»> ::;:::<:>::: »`:<;:;;<;:>:<:::::::z<>:::`>: <= er..btitiftiiiiittal #acs 1bt:s, the:constzuuctton..o....;::::: :,:::.::::..:.:.:.::.:.:.:.::: .:. :.;:. ::::i i . :::::::::::::::.:.:.;;::.::::.:::j:::.;:.:. :>'> laach'':> ld >:„„::::::::.„,M.:g ,.;>an::e> ron iiiita:>,:<:>::::>:iie,i<::::>>>>'«'i €€ <?< >M :;::ai!: '€<<>» <:<>:€`€:::: >MM :.;:.::;<>::::.::.:: could.cause�r emrtxonme mal..ss� < ` n :::.:.::..:..:.: :::...:: :011Se:.::tint:>:n aaA}Kii .a .r table::..servsae:::::ratios. . :::::: ::: .........:::.... : ;tunes"o:.;::: ::»>::>::>:>::<:::«>::>:: : .�::.:�:::.::......:. . .....ra < .. ecfaves:::>for<<»<<i><�::::::::::«:::>::::>::<:>:::::>: >:::::»»>:<:::>:::>:>:::::�<:<:<:><:<>:::::::::i>>�:>:::::::: <;:>:<�::>:>:<�:::::;::::: .the: a) Fire Protection? O H 0 0 b) Police Protection? 0 ® Cl Cl c) Schools? O ® O 0 d) Parks? Cl El O 0 e) Other public facilities? Cl ® 0 0 h:clienir2223l22230001.LC 3-6 Environmental Evaluation • Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study ... ............._...... �' UES.>:>,«:::::::�:::<:;<::>::»>:; :>::< :::::<:«:. ... ..:::;wa,►_:....:......... � :ze.e . , ..:..:.:.�: (see a tachments;f it information soprces) XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ® O O O b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an • adverse physical effect on the environment? 9 O O O .... ..:::.::::.::�"RANSP�RTA,T�ONfCRAI'lE`IC�<:»>:><>�lall :::.;:.: ......................................................................................:.... . ._. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in • relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? H ❑ O ❑ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated • roads or highways? 9 O O ❑ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 O O d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? O O . 9 O e) Result in inadequate emergency access? O O. 9 O f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? O O 0 O g) Conflict with•adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Cl O 9 • O ••:•.::;.::;..:::.:.;•::;:.;:••.;::: lrtD '$ER••• `` ::>:>:><:::>'::... e. :. eft, ................................ a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? O 9 O ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Cl 9 O Cl c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Cl 9 ❑ O h:client/2223/22230001.LC • 3-7 Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study ,;::.:•.;:::::;:>;;:•:.. ,.;: ,> -. 'Stam u ae :.::: :<::.;:::: MENTAt�11SSI]ES;:>;::>:::<::::: <:::>::<.::::><:::«>>:>:::::;:�:::;�::,.:>::�.ea► b:. ::..:.;wienn .:.; �:.fin ::.:(see attachments for information soarers) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and • resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the • project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 0 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 0 0 g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 ® 0 0 ......:.......... ........ . . . ......... .. .. ... ...... a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate, a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ® 0 0 • 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively • considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 0 0 0 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 • b:cienV2223f22230001.LC 3-8 Environmental Evaluation . • Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study SECTION 4 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Explanation of All Answers L AESTHETICS Item a) — "Potentially Significant Impact": The project site lies within the viewshed of certain upland areas, including the chain of low hills that run diagonally across Long Beach in the vicinity of Alamitos Heights. This area includes Veteran's Hospital and California State University Long Beach (CSULB). Portions of the project site are also visible from a hillside development within the Belmont Heights community. Views from these areas may be altered by the proposed project. Potentially affected scenic resources at the site may also include water bodies within and surrounding the project. These include the San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Channel, Marine Stadium and Alamitos Bay. A visual reconnaissance of the project site, surrounding vantage points, and any scenic vistas will be included in the forthcoming EIR. The potential impacts of all phases of the project will be addressed in the EIR, and suitable mitigation measures will be identified, if necessary,to reduce any potentially adverse impacts. Items b) c) and d) — "Less Than Significant Impact": Implementation of the proposed project includes the remediation of onsite hazardous materials, the abandonment of oil well sites and associated infrastructure, the restoration of 111 acres of wetland habitat, and the development of a mixed use development in conformance with the City of Long Beach development standards. These project features are not anticipated to substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings, and will likely provide a beneficial aesthetic impact. The project design will include some combination of building setbacks,berms and landscaping to mitigate potential aesthetics impacts along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage. New light sources associated with the proposed development will be regulated by local ordinance and are not expected to result in an intrusion to surrounding areas. Surface coatings and materials applied to all new structures are not anticipated to result in substantial glare impacts. IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a), b), and c) — "No Impact": The project site has been extensively developed with oil production facilities and. is not zoned or designated by the General Plan for agricultural uses. Implementation of the proposed project therefore does not involve the conversion of farmland to non- farm uses,and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. No farm uses are located adjacent to, or in proximity to the project site, and the proposed project would have no affect on any farming operations. h:dieni/2223n2230001.LC 4-1 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study III. AIR QUALITY Item a)— "Less Than Significant Impact": The proposed project is essentially consistent with the existing Specific Plan for the site, and by extension is consistent with the adopted Air. Quality Management Plan for the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB). While the project's impact is anticipated to be less than significant,this issue will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR. Items b),c),d)and e)—"Potentially Significant Impact": Based on a technical study describing the anticipated air quality effects associated with the project, the forthcoming EIR will analyze all potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. Applicable air quality standards will be addressed, as well as the project's cumulative impact and potential exposure to sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals, etc.). Short-term construction activities may result in temporary odors from construction equipment. However, these effects would be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people. The potential for any significant odor impact resulting from potential oil residues in soil, or following the consolidation and removal of oil facilities from the site,will be evaluated in the E . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a) through c) — Potentially Significant Impact": The project will restore and enhance approximately 111 acres of wetland area degraded by oil production activities. However,the proposed project has the potential to affect sensitive species and riparian habitat, including wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Proposed residential and business park development may be in conflict with Coastal Act policy regarding permitted uses and activities in wetlands. These impacts will be fully explored and addressed in the forthcoming EIR. Suitable mitigation will also be included to address adverse impacts to biological resources. Item d) — "Less Than Significant Impact": The project includes a 400 foot wide non-wetland habitat corridor as a flyway through the project. Although impacts on migratory fish and wildlife are anticipated to be less than significant,this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. Items e) and f)— "No Impact": The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, nor does it conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional or state habitat conservation plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a), b), and c)— "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": Grading and other construction activities at the project site have the potential to adversely impact historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources which may exist at the site. Appropriate mitigation h:client/2223/22230001.LC 4-2 Discussion ofEnvironmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study measures will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant impact. Project impacts and mitigation will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR, based on previous studies prepared for the project site. Item d) — "No Impact": The project site has been previously excavated for oilfield development facilities. No human remains are known to occur at the site, and the proposed project's construction activity would no have no impact on this issue. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Item a) (i through iii) — "Potentially Significant Impact": The project site is traversed by the Newport-Inglewood Fault which crosses through the south-central portion of the site in a northwesterly direction. While the proposed project will exclude buildings within the fault zone, the forthcoming EIR will address adverse effects to people or structures resulting from surface rupture, seismic shaking, and liquefaction. Mitigation measures will be recommended to eliminate or reduce any adverse geological impacts. Item a), iv)— "Less Than Significant Impact": Because the project site consists of a relatively flat topography, with little or no sloping, the potential for landslides is considered minimal. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effect to people or structures from landslides. Items b) through d)— "Potentially Significant Impact": The proposed project has the potential to result in soil erosion, and may be subject to liquefaction, subsidence, or risks to property from soil expansion. These effects will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR based on soils reports prepared for the project site. If necessary, suitable mitigation measures will be recommended to eliminate or reduce adverse project impacts. Item e) — "No Impact": Plans for the proposed project do not include the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems, including the use of septic tanks. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore have no impact on this area. • 6:dientR223r22230001.LC 4-3 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property initial Study VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Item a) — "Less Than Significant Impact": While implementation of the proposed project will require remediation of existing hazards at the site prior to construction activity, operation of the project does not involve the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials. Items b) and d) — "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The project site is likely to contain hazardous materials related to historic and current oilfield operations. This may include areas of contaminated soil from oil residues or oil drilling muds. Further, the potential may exist for uncontrolled release of methane gas either from past oil extraction, or from landfills on the site. In addition, potential impacts could result from unknown hazards and historic oilfield infrastructure at the site encountered during construction activities. Prior,to implementing the proposed project, site cleanup and remediation activity will occur at the site in order to reduce potential hazardous material impacts to the environment and the public. These impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be discussed in the forthcoming EIR. Item c) — "Less Than Significant Impact": The northernmost portion of the project site is located approximately one-third mile south of an elementary school located at the northeast corner of East 5th Street and Silvera Avenue, adjacent to Channel View Park. In addition, a high school is located approximately three-quarter miles north of the site at Iroquois Avenue, south of East Anaheim Road. Therefore, the project does not involve the emission or handling of hazardous materials within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Items e)and t)—"No Impact": The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Long Beach Municipal Airport and approximately 2.25 miles southwest of the landing strip at the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Los Alamitos. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any interference with operations at either of the facilities. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Items g) and h) — "No Impact": The proposed project essentially conforms with the existing SEADIP Specific Plan for the site, which was not found to conflict with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan at the time of adoption. Further, the project site is surrounded by highly urbanized uses and is not subject to risk of wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Item a)— "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": Project grading activities have the potential to temporarily degrade existing runoff from the site. However, the project will conform .with all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including the incorporation of a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) with Best Management h:client/2223/22230001.LC 4-4 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study Practices (BMP) to control erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. Details regarding the potential impacts of the project during construction and operation will be provided in the forthcoming EIR, and will include appropriate mitigation measures,if necessary. Item b)— "Less Than Significant Impact": Development at the project site would not result in a substantial interference with groundwater recharge and is not anticipated to deplete existing groundwater supplies. However, the project's overall impact to water resources will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR, as a component of the public utilities section ofthe document. Suitable mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts will be included,if necessary. Items c) through f) — "Potentially Significant Impact": The proposed project's proximity to the San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Channel, and incorporation of approximately 111 acres of restored wetlands has the potential to substantially alter existing drainage patterns, and thereby impact both the quantity and quality of surface water flows. These potential impacts will be fully addressed in the forthcoming EIR, and will include suitable mitigation measures to reduce any adverse impacts associated with the proposed project,if necessary. Items g), h), and i)—"Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The project site is in a low lying area surrounded by water bodies and wetlands, and is subject to strong seismic activity which could undermine flood control structures. Potential flooding at the site and the risk to people and structures will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR. Suitable mitigation measures will be suggested in order to reduce any potentially adverse impacts associated with the project. Item j) — "Less Than Significant Impact": Although the project site is located near several water bodies,the potential for inundation of the site by seiche or tsunami is considered to be low. However, these potential impacts will be further addressed in the forthcoming EIR. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a) and c) — "No Impact": The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the approved SEADIP Specific Plan for the site. Both the Specific Plan and the design details of the proposed project account for adjacent land uses, including the residential uses located to the northwest of the project site. Development of the project site would not physically divide this community or any other community in the project vicinity. The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan,and therefore would not be in conflict with such a plan. Item b)—"Potentially Significant Impact": The project site is subject to both the SEADIP Plan and the Local Coastal Plan(LCP)adopted by the City of Long Beach2. The forthcoming EIR will address 2 See prior note'regarding the status of the Los Cerritos Wetlands LCP. h:clienU2223/22230001.LC 4-5 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study the proposed project in terms of consistency with the policies and requirements of both the SEADIP Plan and the LCP,and will include suitable mitigation measures, if necessary. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Item a) — "Potentially Significant Impact": The project site is currently developed for oilfield extraction activities. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a phase-out of these activities. The impact of the loss of availability of this resource will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR. Item b)—"Less Than Significant Impact": The uses established for proposed project conforms with the adopted SEADIP Specific Plan which regulates land uses at the site. As the Specific Plan is the most current expression of City policy regarding land uses at the site,the proposed project would not result in a loss of a locally important resource as delineated by a land use plan. XI. NOISE Items a), c), and d) — "Potentially Significant Impact": Based on the technical noise study, the forthcoming EIR will examine the proposed project for potential noise impacts. This will include the anticipated noise levels at the project site, as well as noise generated during the construction and operation of the proposed project (i.e., traffic-related noise). Potentially significant impacts will be identified and suitable mitigation measures will be formulated, if necessary. Item b) — "Less Than Significant Impact": Operation of the proposed project, which includes residential and business park uses,will not be subject to, nor generate,groundborne vibration or noise levels. Construction activity may result in some groundborne noise or vibration levels at adjacent land uses,however these levels are not anticipated to be substantial and the impact will be temporary. Items e) and I) — "Less Than Significant Impact": The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Long Beach Municipal Airport and approximately 2.25 miles southwest of the landing strip at the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Los Alamitos. Given the distance and siting of these facilities in relation to the project site, noise impacts at the project site are not anticipated to be substantial. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Item a)— "Potentially Significant Impact": The proposed project includes the development of 524 clustered residential units and approximately 444,000 square feet of business park uses. Implementation of the proposed project will result in direct increases in population through the provision of new housing and may indirectly increase growth by creating new jobs during construction h:cient/2223/222300011C 4-6 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property initial Study activity and operation of the business park.. These impacts will be addressed within the forthcoming EIR. Items b) and c) — "No Impact": The project site is currently developed with oilfield uses. Implementation of the proposed project does not require the displacement of any housing units or residents in the project area. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a) through e)— "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The forthcoming EIR will address potential impacts related to schools, fire, and police services, and will include suitable mitigation measures, if necessary. In addition; impacts to parks will be addressed under the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space section of the EIR. Any other public facilities which may be impacted will also be included in the EIR,if necessary. XIV. RECREATION Items a) and b) — "Potentially Significant Impact": Implementation of the proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 111 acres of degraded wetlands at the site, and the construction of bikeways in accordance with the City's Bikeway Master Plan. The project will also result in an increased demand for recreation and open space resulting from the increased population at the site and in the project vicinity. The forthcoming EIR will address the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on existing and planned facilities. Suitable mitigation will be identified to reduce adverse impacts,if necessary. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a) and b)— "Potentially Significant Impact": The proposed project includes 524 residential units and up to 440,000 square feet of business park development, which will result in an increase in the number of vehicle trips in the study area. The impacts of the proposed project will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR, based on the traffic study being prepared for the project and project alternatives. This will include a summary of the existing traffic setting,project impacts,and mitigation measures. Item c) — "No Impact": The project site is located over two miles from Long Beach Municipal Airport. Development of the project site with residential and commercial uses will not affect air traffic patterns. Items d) through g) — "Less Than Significant Impact": Access to the project site will occur primarily from along the existing Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road, and Shopkeeper Road, as well as from a proposed extension of Studebaker Road. Project design features are anticipated to h:client/2223/22230001.LC 4-7 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study minimize potential design hazards in the study area,but will be fully addressed in the forthcoming EIR and traffic study. In addition, potential parking capacity, emergency access, and policies supporting alternative transportation will be addressed in the EIR. If necessary, appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a) through g) — "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The proposed project to result in significant impacts relating to the provision of wastewater treatment,water supply, and solid waste disposal services. The forthcoming EIR will address the anticipated environmental effects of these issues. Letters will be sent to the relevant utility providers in order to document existing system capacities,anticipated project demand,and suitable mitigation measures,if necessary. In addition, design features of the proposed project include the restoration and enhancement of approximately 111 acres of degraded wetlands at the site, and will include a systematic drainage plan. The project is not anticipated to require the construction of significant new drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. However, drainage issues will be addressed under the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the forthcoming EIR,and will include suitable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impact,if necessary. XV. Mandatory Findings of Significance • Item a) — "Potentially Significant Impact": Given the sensitive nature of the habitat at the project site (i.e., wetlands), the proposed project may substantially affect fish or wildlife species, and could impact examples of California prehistory. These impacts,among others,will be fully addressed in the forthcoming EIR, and will include suitable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. Item b)— "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": Cumulative impacts associated with each issue area potentially impacted by the project (e.g., Biology, Traffic, Air Quality, etc.) will be included in the forthcoming EIR. If necessary, mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate cumulatively adverse impacts will be provided. Item c) — "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": Potential hazards at the site which could adversely affect human beings include the hazardous materials from existing and historic oilfield uses onsite, the traversing of the site by the Newport-Inglewood fault, and nearby location of former landfill sites. Each of these issues will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR,including suitable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of the project. h:cient/2223r22230001.LC 4-8 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation � r Bixby Long Beach Property Initial Study SECTION 5 REFERENCES City of Long Beach. 1977.Final EIR for Southwest Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP)E-4-76. City of Long Beach and County of Los Angeles. 1984.Los Cerritos Wetlands Local Coastal Program. Forma.4/1999. Conceptual Site Plan—Los Cerritos Project,Long Beach, California. • h:cclient/2223/22230001.LC 5-1 References MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services I t ) Subject: Receipt of Notice of Preparation of EIR - Bixby Long Beach Property - City of Long Beach Date: October 12, 1999 The above-referenced Notice of Preparation is being provided early to allow additional time for your review of the subject "Notice of Preparation". Staff will be preparing a draft comment letter for consideration by the City Council on October 25, 1999. Due to the time deadline for receipt of comments on the Notice of Preparation, the EQCB will not be considering this matter prior to the City Council meeting of October 25. Comments must be received by November 6, after the EQCB meeting of October 27, but prior to the City Council meeting of November 8. The project is proposed to consist of the following major components: O 524 attached residential units, 2-4 unit structures, 50 acres o 440,000 square feet of business park„ 28 acres o restored and enhanced wetlands, 111 acres If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Attachment: "Notice of Preparation - Bixby Long Beach Property", prepared by the City of Long Beach, dated August 1999 * * * * C:1My Documents\CEQMBixby Long Beach NOP Memo.CC,PC,EQCB.doc\LW\10-11-99