Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet_10272025
:oF SE'at`Q�,, AGENDA It �cQtr�oRN�P- MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 27, 2025 - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California LISA LANDAU MAYOR Third District NATHAN STEELE MAYOR PRO TEM Fifth District BEN WONG COUNCIL MEMBER Second District JOE KALMICK COUNCIL MEMBER First District PATTY SENECAL COUNCIL MEMBER Fourth District This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. No action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda, except as otherwise provided by law. Supporting documents, including agenda staff reports, and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available on the City's website at www.sealbeachca.gov. City Council meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV -3 and on the City's website (www.sealbeachca.gov). Check SBTV-3 schedule for the rebroadcast of meetings. The meetings are also available on demand on the City's website (starting 2012). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require disability related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services to attend or participate in the City Council meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCIL ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS — None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law. Matters not on the agenda may, at the Council's discretion, be referred to the City Manager and placed on a future agenda. Those members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come forward to the microphone and state their name for the record. All speakers will be limited to a period of five (5) minutes. Speakers must address their comments only to the Mayor and entire City Council, and not to any individual, member of the staff or audience. Any documents for review should be presented to the City Clerk for distribution. Speaker cards will be available at the Clerk's desk for those wishing to sign up to address the Council, although the submission of a speaker card is not required in order to address the Council. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES By motion of the City Council this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda and /or rearrange the order of the agenda. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney CITY MANAGER REPORT Patrick Gallegos, City Manager COUNCIL COMMENTS General Council Member comments and reporting pursuant to AB 1234. COUNCIL ITEMS — None CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items removed by Council Members. A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meeting held on October 13, 2025. B. Demand of City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification C. Monthly Investment Report (October 27, 2025) - Receive and file. D. City Council Appointment - It is at the request of Mayor Landau that the City Council appoint Susan Perrell to represent District Three on the Planning Commission. E. Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts - That the City Council receive and file the report. F. Approving and Authorizing Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC for Services Related to the Implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (Organic Waste) and Contracting Assistance with the City's Waste Hauler - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7703: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC, dated June 10, 2024, extending the term of the Agreement through and including December 31, 2026, and approving an increase in compensation of $25,000 for a revised total contract not -to -exceed amount of $140,000; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC on behalf of the City. G. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) for the Period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028 - That the Council adopt Resolution 7704: 1. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-04-02 for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING H. Consideration of Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of Resolution approving Amendments to the Housing Element of the Seal Beach General Plan for the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Planning Period, Adoption of Ordinances Amending Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and the Main Street Specific Plan, and Adoption of a Resolution Finding that the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Related Zoning Code Amendment and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment are Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Housing Element Update and Related Zoning Code Amendment and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment are Inconsistent with the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan - That the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7705 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act for the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update, and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan; and, 3. Adopt Resolution 7706 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; and,4. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1721 amending Title 11 (Zoning Code) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to establish the Mixed Commercial/Residential High - Density Zone and related development standards (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 5. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1722 amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 6. Introduce, waive full reading and read by title only Ordinance 1723 amending the Main Street Specific Plan to allow residential uses subject to limitations (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 7. Adopt Resolution 7707 Finding that:a. The Seal Beach General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. b.The related Amendments to Title 11 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Zoning Code and Zoning Map) are Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Zoning Code Amendment are Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. c. The related Amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Main Street Specific Plan Amendment is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. UNFINISHED / CONTINUED BUSINESS — None NEW BUSINESS Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Professional Maintenance Services Agreements with Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC for On -Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7708: 1. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company, for an original term of three (3) years in the not -to - exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On -Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 2. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with PaveWest, LLC, for an original term of three (3) years in the not -to -exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On -Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the Agreements; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend any or all of the Agreements up to two (2) additional one-year terms after its original term for a not -to -exceed amount of $150,000 per additional term; and, 5. Rejecting all other proposals. J. Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the On -Call Professional Services Agreement with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC for Pavement Marking Maintenance Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7709: 1. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an On -Call Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC, for the original term of three (3) years in the not -to -exceed amount of $150,000, to provide pavement marking maintenance services; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend the Agreement for up to two (2) additional one-year terms for a not-to- exceed amount of $50,000 per additional term; and, 3. Rejecting all other proposals. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the City Council to Monday, November 10, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. CITY COUNCIL NORMS: Adopted on June 12, 2023 • Maintain a citywide perspective, while being mindful of our districts. • Move from I to we, and from campaigning to governing. • Work together as a body, modeling teamwork and civility for our community. • Assume good intent. • Disagree agreeably and professionally. • Utilize long range plans to provide big picture context that is realistic and achievable. • Stay focused on the topic at hand. Ensure each member of Council has an opportunity to speak. • Demonstrate respect, consideration, and courtesy to all. • Share information and avoid surprises. • Keep confidential things confidential. • Respect the Council/Manager form of government and the roles of each party. • Communicate concerns about staff to the City Manager; do not criticize staff in public. CIVILITY PRINCIPLES: Treat everyone courteously; Listen to others respectfully; Exercise self-control; Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints; Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; and, Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions. FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK @CITYOFSEALBEACH @SEALBEACHRECREATION&COMMUNITYSERVICES @SEALBEACHPOLICEDEPARTMENT 015 FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM @ CITYOFSEALB EACH CA @SEALBEACH_LIFEGUARD @SEALBEACHPOLICE @SEALBEACHPUBLICWORKS @K9YOSA @K9.SAURUS Q FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/X @SEALBEACHCITYCA U\�QF SERC 6F9�2S AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of the City Council Minutes SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meeting held on October 13, 2025. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This section does not apply. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meeting held on October 13, 2025. Agenda Item A SUBMITTED BY: Gloria Q Yfarper Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Gallegos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager A. Minutes - Closed Session, October 13, 2025 B. Minutes - Regular Session, October 13, 2025 Page 2 Seal Beach, California October 13, 2025 The City Council met in Closed Session at 5:34 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. Rnl I (-Al I Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Barbara Arenado, Finance Director/ City Treasurer Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City Negotiator(s): City Manager Patrick Gallegos Employee Organization (s): Orange County Employees Association Police Officers Association Police Management Association B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Government Code §54956.8 Property: 15 1 st Street and Seal Beach Public Works Yard, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Agency Negotiator: City Manager Patrick Gallegos Negotiating Party: Rosie Ritchie, Beach House at the River, LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): 1 Potential Case The City Council voted to join an Amicus Brief in support of the City of Huntington Beach's lawsuit against the State of California. AYES: Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: Kalmick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) — One potential (1) case involving a threat of litigation regarding a proposed development at 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA. A record of the threats of litigation is available for inspection in the City Clerk's office ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 7:04 p.m. Approved: Attested: Lisa Landau, Mayor Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California October 13, 2025 The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:08 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Council Member Wong led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Michael Henderson, Police Chief Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Chief Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Mike Ezroj, Police Captain Nick Nicholas, Police Captain Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager David Spitz, Associate Engineer Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS • County of Orange Updates from Supervisor Nguyen ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: James Jenson, Myra Romero, Cher Engelsted, Catherine Showalter, Chad Berlinghieri, Charlie Kluger, JOBN, and Darrel Stoskopf addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. Two (2) supplemental communications were received after the posting of the agenda; they were distributed to the City Council and made available to the public. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Council Member Senecal pulled item D for separate consideration. Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Kalmick, to approve the agenda. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Landau, Senecal, Steele NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Ghirelli reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the three (3) items on the posted agenda. All five (5) Council Members were present. He noted that on Item C, the City Council voted to join an Amicus Brief in support of the City of Huntington Beach's lawsuit against the State of California. The vote passed 4-1 with Council Member Kalmick voting No. Additionally, City Attorney Ghirelli reported that the City of Seal Beach has not issued an encroachment permit or authorized a connection to the sewer system in relation to the Lampson Park Place Project. He noted that sewer connections must be approved before any building permits can be issued. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Gallegos announced his attendance at Staff Development Day. Additionally, he welcomed EggBred Breakfast Restaurant to Seal Beach and wished them the best. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the Building Owners Managers Association (BOMA) annual government affairs fundraiser, the State of the County Address, the City of Redlands homelessness meeting and the Eggbred Breakfast Restaurant Grand Opening. Additionally, Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the League of California Cities Annual Conference, where he attended seminars on parking and how to conduct smooth council meetings Finally, Council Member Wong recognized the 14th Anniversary of the shooting that took place at Salon Meritage. Council Member Kalmick reported his attendance at the Long Beach Studebaker Avenue Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, the Orange County Council of Governments (OC -COG) meeting, the Watershed Conservation Authority meeting, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority meeting, the September 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the Association of California Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC) Southern California Edison Grid Tech Learning Center tour and seminar, the October 6, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, and the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Additionally, Council Member Kalmick reported that he toured the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Council Member Senecal reported that she attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference, which had over 4000 people in attendance. She noted how critical the networking is for this event Additionally, she announced her attendance at the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Open House. Mayor Pro Tem Steele reported his attendance at the Celebration of Life for Dr. Shupe, the State of the County Address, the Association of California Cities — Orange County (ACC -OC) Southern California Edison Grid Tech Learning Center tour and seminar, the Spectrum Broadband Seminar, and the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Steele announced that the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control Board has found some mosquitoes infected with West Nile Virus in Seal Beach. Mayor Landau reported her attendance at the State of the County Address, the State of the School District Address, and the Eggbred Breakfast Restaurant Grand Opening. She announced that there will be a fundraiser for Lifeguard Isaiah Osorio on November 1, 2025, at the Beach House from 8:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. She noted that from 4:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m., there will be a live band and raffles. Additionally, she asked Chief Henderson for the number of calls for service related to the short-term rental on Riviera Drive. Lastly, she introduced Susan Perrell, as the new Planning Commissioner from District 3 and Leslie Carter, who will become the Representative for District 3 on the Environmental Quality Control Board. Both appointments are scheduled to be agendized for future Council meetings. COUNCIL ITEMS There were no council items. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Wong to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar with the exception of Item D. A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meeting held on September 22, 2025. B. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1720 - That the City Council conduct second reading, by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1720 titled "An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Sections 9.35.005 and 9.35.090 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code Updating the City's Cross -Connection Program and Finding the Ordinance to Be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act" E. Approving and Authorizing the Transfer of the Public Works Superintendent Classification to the Mid -Management and Confidential Employees Association Bargaining Unit - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7700: 1. Approving the transfer of the Public Works Superintendent classification's bargaining unit from the Seal Beach Supervisors & Professionals Association to the Mid -Management and Confidential Employees Association, retroactive to June 23, 2025, coinciding with the date of reclassification; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents and take actions required to classify the Public Works Superintendent in the new bargaining unit. The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Item D. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ffiT@ „ E. Approving and Authorizing the Transfer of the Public Works Superintendent Classification to the Mid -Management and Confidential Employees Association Bargaining Unit - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7700: 1. Approving the transfer of the Public Works Superintendent classification's bargaining unit from the Seal Beach Supervisors & Professionals Association to the Mid -Management and Confidential Employees Association, retroactive to June 23, 2025, coinciding with the date of reclassification; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents and take actions required to classify the Public Works Superintendent in the new bargaining unit. The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Item D. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR D. Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental, Inc. - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7699: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement for continued temporary staffing services with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental authorizing a four-month term extension through and including June 30, 2026, and an increase in compensation of $209,000 for a revised total not -to -exceed amount of $250,000 for the term; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the City. City Manager Gallegos called upon Interim Director of Community Development Temple. Interim Director of Community Development Temple provided an overview of the staff report Mayor Pro Tem Steele and Council Members Wong and Senecal's questions and concerns were addressed by Interim Director of Community Development Temple. Council Member Senecal moved, second by Mayor Landau to adopt Resolution 7699: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement for continued temporary staffing services with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental authorizing a four-month term extension through and including June 30, 2026, and an increase in compensation of $209,000 for a revised total not -to -exceed amount of $250,000 for the term; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the City. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING F. Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance 1719 - That the City Council: 1. Waive further reading and read by title only, Ordinance 1719 Adopting by Reference the 2025 California Building Code, 2025 California Residential Code, 2025 California Electrical Code, 2025 California Mechanical Code, 2025 California Plumbing Code, and 2025 California Fire Code, with Certain Amendments, Additions and Deletions, Amending Title 9 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7696, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, California, Adopting Findings to Support Local Amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code Based on Local Climatic, Topographical, and Geological Conditions. Mayor Landau called upon Interim Director of Community Development Temple. Interim Director of Community Development Temple provided an overview of the staff report. Mayor Landau opened the public hearing. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed the public hearing. Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Wong to 1. Waive further reading and read by title only, Ordinance 1719 Adopting by Reference the 2025 California Building Code, 2025 California Residential Code, 2025 California Electrical Code, 2025 California Mechanical Code, 2025 California Plumbing Code, and 2025 California Fire Code, with Certain Amendments, Additions and Deletions, Amending Title 9 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7696, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, California, Adopting Findings to Support Local Amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code Based on Local Climatic, Topographical, and Geological Conditions. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS G. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services and Amendment 3 to Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. for Engineering Services and for the Lampson Well Treatment System Project, CIP WT1902 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7701: 1. Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Lampson Well Treatment System Project CIP WT1902 for the term extending from October 13, 2025, through June 30, 2028, in the not -to -exceed amount of $494,722, and rejecting all other proposals; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management and Inspection Services with Butier Engineering, Inc. for the Project; and authorizing the City Manager to approve additional construction management and inspection services up to $50,000 (approximately 10%), in connection with the Project; and, 3. Approving Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Advanced Civil Engineer, Inc. for Engineering Services extending the term through and including June 30, 2028, and increasing the compensation by $144,870 for a revised total not -to -exceed amount of $586,475 for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Advanced Civil Engineer, Inc., on behalf of the City for the Project. Mayor Landau called upon Deputy Director of Public Works Cho. Deputy Director of Public Works Cho provided an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Mayor Pro Tem Steele, Council Member Senecal, Deputy Director of Public Works Cho, Director of Public Works Lee, City Attorney Ghirelli, Mayor Landau, City Manager Gallegos, and Council Member Wong. Council's questions and concerns were addressed by Deputy Director of Public Works Cho, Director of Public Works Lee and City Attorney Ghirelli. Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to adopt Resolution 7701: 1. Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Lampson Well Treatment System Project CIP WT1902 for the term extending from October 13, 2025, through June 30, 2028, in the not -to -exceed amount of $494,722, and rejecting all other proposals; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management and Inspection Services with Butier Engineering, Inc. for the Project; and authorizing the City Manager to approve additional construction management and inspection services up to $50,000 (approximately 10%), in connection with the Project; and, 3. Approving Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Advanced Civil Engineer, Inc. for Engineering Services extending the term through and including June 30, 2028, and increasing the compensation by $144,870 for a revised total not -to -exceed amount of $586,475 for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Advanced Civil Engineer, Inc., on behalf of the City for the Project. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried NEW BUSINESS H. Revised Pay Scale for Marine Safety Part -Time Lifeguard Employees - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7702: 1. Amending the Pay for Part -Time Marine Safety City Employees; and, 2. Approving the revised combined part-time pay schedule for Marine Safety classifications effective October 26, 2025 and rescinding Resolution 5856; and, 3. Removing the Swim Instructor and Assistant Pool Manager classifications; and, 4. Approving Budget Adjustment #26-04-01. Mayor Landau called upon Marine Safety Chief Bailey. Marine Safety Chief Bailey provided an in-depth presentation of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Mayor Pro Tem Steele and Marine Safety Chief Bailey. Council Member Senecal moved, second Mayor Landau to adopt Resolution 7702: 1. Amending the Pay for Part -Time Marine Safety City Employees; and, 2. Approving the revised combined part-time pay schedule for Marine Safety classifications effective October 26, 2025 and rescinding Resolution 5856; and, 3. Removing the Swim Instructor and Assistant Pool Manager classifications; and, 4. Approving Budget Adjustment #26- 04-01. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried Council Member Senecal requested that a discussion item be agendized regarding staff time allocation to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund and the record keeping process. Council Member Wong requested a status update on electronic billboards be agendized for a future meeting. Director of Public Works Lee provided a brief update on the bid proposal process related to electronic billboards. There was Council consensus to agendize the items. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council at 9:37 p.m. to Monday, October 27, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved: Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year 2026 Warrant Listing for Council Meeting 10/27/2025 Approve by Minute Order Demands on Treasury: Warrants-A/P: Checks (33683-33805) $ 947,086.88 UB Refunds $ Electronic Funds Transfer (5679-5724) $ 232,600.76 Voids $ - Bank Drafts: Payroll State & Federal Taxes $ 184.61 Ca1PERS Pension $ 6,139.81 $ 1,186,012.06 Year -to -Date: $ 18,325,859.38 Payroll: Payroll Direct Deposit $ 410,777.64 Total Payroll: $ 410,777.64 Year -to -Date: $ 3,736,258.69 Note: Year-to-date amounts are actual cash disbursements and do not reflect actual expenditures due to year-end accruals. Respectfully submitted by: Barbara Arena - - t� w v Director of Finance/City Treasurer Vendor Number Vendor Name Payable# Payable Type Post Date Bank Code: APBW General -BW City General Acct. Payment Type: EFT 000021 AFLAC 324308 Invoice 10/02/2025 000056 Anne Pennypacker 440255 Invoice 10/02/2025 000136 C3 Technology Services INV199150 Invoice 10/02/2025 INV200551 Invoice 10/02/2025 INV202266/2 Invoice 10/02/2025 000248 Custom Glass 26972 Invoice 10/02/2025 000284 Delta Dental of California BE006696354 Invoice 10/02/2025 001514 Dion & Sons Marine Fuels Inc 18789 Invoice 10/02/2025 19567 Invoice 10/02/2025 000417 Granite Telecommunications LLC 714146004 Invoice 10/02/2025 001993 HASA INC 1072205 Invoice 10/02/2025 1073651 Invoice 10/02/2025 001215 Infosend Inc 294402 Invoice 10/02/2025 000592 Uebert Cassidy Whitmore 305346 Invoice 10/02/2025 000593 Lifecom Inc. 2107144 -IN Invoice 10/02/2025 001280 Michael McDonald W52814 Invoice 10/02/2025 000684 Municipal Water District of Orange County 11899 Invoice 10/02/2025 001675 ODP Business Solutions, LLC 433538701001 Invoice 10/02/2025 437653820001 Invoice 10/02/2025 437654204001 Invoice 10/02/2025 438518799001 Invoice 10/02/2025 002026 One Sports Academy LLC 457883 Invoice 10/02/2025 000784 PSI 53478 Invoice 10/02/2025 000818 Richards Watson & Gershon 254644 Invoice 10/02/2025 Payment Date Payment Type Payable Description 10/07/2025 EFT Services 9/2025 10/07/2025 EFT Instructor services 8/15/25-9/15/25 10/07/2025 EFT Services 4/15/25-6/14/25 Services 5/10/25-6/9/25 Services 7/1/25 - 7/9/25 10/07/2025 EFT COBG Bsthroom Access. - Stewart -351 10/07/2025 EFT Dental Insurance 9/2025 10/07/2025 EFT Dyed Diesel Dyed Diesel 10/07/2025 EFT Legacy Phone Lines - PW 9/2025 10/07/2025 EFT 1 Gal. - Cargo Tank 1 Gal. - Cargo Tank 10/07/2025 EFT Services 7/31/25-8/27/25 10/07/2025 EFT Professional services thru 9/12/25 10/07/2025 EFT Calibration & Certification 10/07/2025 EFT Py #19 - 9/19/25 Uniform Allowance 10/07/2025 EFT Water deliveries 8/2025 10/07/2025 EFT Office & kitchen supplies Kitchen supplies & sunscreen Spoons Plates and paper 10/07/2025 EFT Instructor services 7/11/25-8/10/25 10/07/2025 EFT Jumper hose 10/07/2025 EFT General Svcs thru 7/31/25 Check Report By Check Number Date Range: 10/04/2025- 10/17/2025 DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DiscountAmount PayableAmount 0.00 2,419.49 5679 0.00 2,419.49 0.00 2,415.70 5680 0.00 2,415.70 0.00 2,809.93 5681 0.00 1,449.54 0.00 1,206.72 0.00 153.67 0.00 1,240.00 5682 0.00 1,240.00 0.00 12,987.63 5683 0.00 12,987.63 0.00 165.90 5684 0.00 113.40 0.00 52.50 0.00 800.70 5685 0.00 800.70 0.00 1,449.97 5686 0.00 766.27 0.00 683.70 0.00 1,841.78 5687 0.00 1,841.78 0.00 48,339.88 5688 0.00 48,339.88 0.00 80.00 5689 0.00 80.00 0.00 40.00 5690 0.00 40.00 0.00 14,711.00 5691 0.00 14,711.00 0.00 661.33 5692 0.00 366.10 0.00 - 100.05 0.00 5.94 0.00 189.24 0.00 2,080.00 5693 0.00 2,080.00 0.00 54.63 5694 0.00 54.63 0.00 53,229.15 5695 0.00 22,000.00 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 1 of 13 Check Report Date Range; 10/04/2025 -10/17/2025 Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 254645 Invoice 10/02/2025 Additional Svcs thru 7/31/25 0.00 10,533.82 254646 Invoice 10/02/2025 General Plan Svcs thru 7/31/25 0.00 1,692.80 254647 Invoice 10/02/2025 Franchises Svcs thru 7/31/25 0.00 12,316.50 254648 Invoice 10/02/2025 Adv. Orangeblue Contractors Svcs thru 7/ 0.00 450.50 254649 Invoice 10/02/2025 Lampson Park Place Project Svcs thru 7/3 0.00 4,906.89 254650 Invoice 10/02/2025 Code Violations-1300 PCH Svcs thru 7/31 0.00 1,328.64 000876 Sectran Security, Inc. 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 801.28 5696 2250 06331 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/2025 0.00 801.28 001011 ULINE 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 248.79 5697 196922541 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fan & rubber swivel caster 0.00 248.79 001026 USA Bluebook 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 440.36 5698 INVO0815112 Invoice 10/02/2025 Chart pens 0.00 93.90 INVO0815767 Invoice 10/02/2025 Gear oil 0.00 346.46 000029 AKM Consulting Engineers 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 1,079.00 5699 0013624 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/4/25-8/29/25 0.00 1,079.00 000063 Aqua-Metric Sales Company 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 3,868.72 5700 INVOI09793 Invoice 09/25/2025 2" OMNI C2 water meters read in 100 Cub 0.00 3,868.72 000307 Dixon Resources Unlimited 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 3,750.00 5701 4785 Invoice 09/25/2025 Parking Mgmt Svcs 9/2025 0.00 3,750.00 000597 Local Agency Engineering Associates 10/07/2025 EFT - 0.00 1,793.75 5702 25-SOOR Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/2025 0.00 1,793.75 001675 ODP Business Solutions, LLC 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 403.54 5703 433612496001 Invoice 09/25/2025 Office Chair for 1. Clasby 0.00 403.54 001256 Parts Authority Metro LLC 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 1,477.76 5704 062-711872 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4139 0.00 96.94 062-715798 Invoice 09/25/2025 PO #4139 0.00 47.26 065-019102 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4111 0.00 108.54 065-065478 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4110 0.00 46.11 065-072029 Invoice 09/25/2025 Filters PD#4125 0.00 13.26 290-128087 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4104 0.00 258.33 290-128235 Invoice 09/25/2025 PW #02 0.00 108.98 290-128247 Invoice 09/25/2025 PW #50 0.00 200.15 290-129126 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4139 0.00 183.06 290-129207 Invoice 09/25/2025 Oil &filters 0.00 415.13 000843 5 & 1 Supply Cc 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 850.22 5705 5100256430.001 Invoice 09/25/2025 Keys 0.00 850.22 001248 Sagecrest Planning and Environmental 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 10,340.00 5706 5397 Invoice 09/25/2025 Interim Planning Manager 8/2025 0.00 10,340.00 000928 Step Saver CA LLC 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 1,122.69 5707 0601351222 Invoice 09/25/2025 Coarse salt 0.00 138.59 0601351223 Invoice 09/25/2025 Coarse salt 0.00 205.98 376750 Invoice 09/25/2025 Coarse salt 0.00 496.62 376751 Invoice 09/25/2025 Coarse salt 0.00 281.50 001012 Underground Sery Alert Sc 10/07/2025 EFT 0.00 481.02 5708 25-260753 Invoice 09/25/2025 CA State fee for regulatory costs 9/2025 0.00 101.02 82025663 Invoice 09/25/2025 Monthly Database Maint. & Ticket Charge 0.00 380.00 001089 Control Tech West Inc 10/10/2025 EFT 0.00 5,000.00 5709 3615 Invoice 10/09/2025 Annual ATMS Licenses 0.00 5,000.00 000385 Galls, LLC 10/10/2025 EFT 0.00 59.20 5710 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 2 of 13 Check Report Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description 032321284 Invoice 10/09/2025 Cuff case 000582 Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. 10/10/2025 EFT 0625425 -IN Invoice 10/09/2025 FBI-QIT-03 Paper Targets 000679 Mr. & Mrs. Fire Extinguisher Co. Inc. 10/10/2025 EFT 11931 Invoice 10/09/2025 Emergency fire alarm service at Police HQ 001675 ODP Business Solutions, LLC 10/10/2025 EFT 431560315001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Combo board cork/ dry erase 435711020001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Wall signs 435760205001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Name plates for WC drawers 438206363001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Copy paper 001256 Parts Authority Metro LLC 10/10/2025 EFT 062-679860 Invoice 10/09/2025 PW #02 065-045396 Invoice 10/09/2025 PW #85 065-131188 Invoice 10/09/2025 PD #4110 11D-878653 Invoice 10/09/2025 PD #4110 290-128470 Invoice 10/09/2025 Oil & filters 290-130052 Invoice 10/09/2025 PW #66 290-130280 Invoice 10/09/2025 Wiper blades 000799 Raftelis Financial Consultants Inc 10/10/2025 EFT 41634 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/2025 000839 RPW Services, Inc. 10/10/2025 EFT 46486 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/1/25 46487 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 7/29/25-8/18/25 46488 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/26/25 000843 S & J Supply Cc 10/10/2025 EFT 5100258608.001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 001490 SCA of CA, LLC 10/10/2025 EFT CA25002322 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 9/2025 000928 Step Saver CA LLC 10/10/2025 EFT 376894 Invoice 10/09/2025 Coarse salt 376895 Invoice 10/09/2025 Coarse salt 376967 Invoice 10/09/2025 Coarse salt 377044 Invoice 10/09/2025 Coarse salt 000961 Synoptek 10/10/2025 EFT 1269506 Invoice 10/09/2025 Microsoft licenses 9/2025 001865 Westminster Adoption Group and Services Inc 10/10/2025 EFT October 2025 Invoice 10/09/2025 Shelter services 10/2025 TNR August 2025 Invoice 10/09/2025 TNR's 8/2025 000859 SBMSMA 10/10/2025 EFT INV0004545 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues 000862 SBSPA 10/10/2025 EFT INV0004518 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues 000874 Seal Beach Police Officers Assoc 10/10/2025 EFT INV0004544 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues Total EFT: Date Range: 20/04/2025 - 10/17/2025 Discount Amount PaymentAmount Number DlscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 59.20 0.00 388.24 5711 0.00 388.24 0.00 1,225.00 5712 0.00 1,225.00 0.00 557.90 5713 0.00 70.85 0.00 68.79 0.00 56.77 0.00 361.49 0.00 615.89 5714 0.00 55.29 0.00 5.45 0.00 173.27 0.00 53.88 0.00 228.99 0.00 5.53 0.00 93.48 0.00 13,763.00 5715 0.00 13,763.00 0.00 5,214.48 5716 0.00 1,137.50 0.00 700.00 0.00 3,376.98 0.00 231.16 5717 0.00 231.16 0.00 14,999.78 5718 0.00 14,999.78 0.00 1,203.63 5719 0.00 355.72 0.00 228.86 0.00 413.47 0.00 205.58 0.00 3,919.00 5720 0.00 3,919.00 0.00 11,625.00 5721 0.00 11,500.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 34.62 5722 0.00 34.62 0.00 184.64 5723 0.00 184.64 0.00 1,595.00 5724 0.00 1,595.00 0.00 232,600.76 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 3 of 13 Check Report Date Range; 10/04/2025 -10/17/2025 Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Payable# Payable Type Post Date Payable Description DiscountAmount Payable Amount Payment Type: Regular 002307 TKR Construction 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 380.00 33683 W52480 Invoice 08/28/2025 Refund Permit#BLDR-25-0492 0.00 380.00 000133 BUSINESS CARD 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 19,261.87 33684 2525/9-25 Invoice 10/07/2025 BofA CC Charges 8/11/25-9/10/25 0.00 19,Zb1.87 002147 21 CLETS LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 100.00 33685 W54482 Invoice 10/02/2025 Court& Temp Holding facility training -Fri 0.00 100.00 000040 American Heritage Life 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 13.00 33686 42471/9-25 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/2025 0.00 13.00 000043 American Red Cross 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,028.00 33687 22849736 Invoice 10/02/2025 Emergency Medical Response & CPR/AED 0.00 1,028.00 001681 Anthony Nguyen 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 3,005.00 33688 9.15.25 Invoice 10/02/2025 Tuition Reimb 6/2025 -8/2025 0.00 3,005.00 000086 Bay Hardware 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 38.29 33689 369705 Invoice 10/02/2025 Equip.&materials- athleticfield 0.00 38.29 001409 Ben Jaipream 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,911.00 33690 9.4.2025 Invoice 10/02/2025 Tuition Reimb. 6/2025 - 8/2025 0.00 1,911.00 001547 Bodie's Glass Service LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 989.00 33691 23145 Invoice 10/02/2025 Tempered glass installation 0.00 989.00 001167 Calibre Press 10/06/2025 Regular 0.D0 199.00 33692 149976 Invoice 10/02/2025 Training- R. Rivera 0.00 199.00 002102 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,786.30 33693 0383287090825 Invoice 10/02/2025 Ist St. Connectivity -Services 9/8/25-10/ 0.00 290.20 18870370109072 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fiber -services 9/10/25-10/9/25 0.00 1,235.00 18870380109142 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/19/25-10/18/25 0.00 128.32 18870520109142 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/19/25-10/18/25 0.00 132.78 002341 Chris Dominguez 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 453.22 33694 .94.2025 Invoice 10/02/2025 Travel Reimb for Swiftwater Technician 0.00 453.22 000188 Cintas Corporation 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 135.28 33695 4236046177 Invoice 10/02/2025 Uniforms 0.00 135.28 000188 Cintas Corporation 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 303.33 33696 5275439312 Invoice 10/02/2025 First Aid Restock 0.00 114.19 5290108013 Invoice 10/02/2025 Medical supply restock 0.00 189.14 000194 City Of Cypress 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 242,593.16 33697 13090 Invoice 10/02/2025 West -Comm 2nd Qtr 0.00 242,593.16 002340 Cornerstone Church 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 488.00 33698 W52407 Invoice 10/02/2025 Adj. to gym rsry - refund the difference 0.00 440.00 W52409 Invoice 10/02/2025 Adj. to reservation request - refund 0.00 48.00 000233 County of Orange 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 21,118.88 33699 SH 72246 Invoice 10/02/2025 AFIS 8/2025 0.00 730.00 STCS003543 Invoice 10/02/2025 800 MHZ 1st Qtr. - 7/2025 - 9/2025 0.00 20,388.88 000234 County of Orange 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 4,478.00 33700 IN2779589 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals- 911 Seal B O.OD 451.00 IN2779871 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals- 1776 Adolf 0.00 618.00 IN2780100 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals- 3101 N. G 0.00 618.00 IN2780486 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals- 251st St. 0.00 451.00 IN2780594 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals -3333 Bois 0.00 618.00 IN2780667 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals- 911 Seal B 0.00 314.00 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 4 of 13 Check Report Date Range: 20/04/2025 -10/17/2025 Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount IN2780717 Invoice 10/02/2025 Haz Mat Disclosure Chemicals-601 Gard 0.00 451.00 IN2780881 Invoice 10/02/2025 Hat Mat Disclosure Chemicals-4307 Lam 0.00 618.00 IN2780884 Invoice 10/02/2025 Hat Mat Disclosure Chemicals-1776 Adolf 0.00 339.00 000250 CWEA 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 114.00 33701 W52703 Invoice 10/02/2025 Collect. Sys Malnt. Grade 1 Cert Renewal- 0.00 114.00 000254 Cypress SB Car Spa Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,135.00 33702 Aueust 2025 Invoice 10/02/2025 Car washes 8/2025 0.00 480.00 July Invoice 10/02/2025 Car washes 7/2025-8/2025 0.00 95.00 July 2025 Invoice 10/02/2025 Patrol vehicle washes 7/2025 0.00 560.00 000290 Department of Justice 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,824.00 33703 733037 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 4/2024 0.00 608.00 739778 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 5/2024 0.00 608.00 746680 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 6/2024 0.00 160.00 753406 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 7/2024 0.00 32.00 760230 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 8/2024 0.00 128.00 781398 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 11/2024 0.00 96.00 842739 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fingerprints 8/2025 0.00 192.00 000302 DIRECTV 10/06/2025 -Regular 0.00 249.99 33704 045850295X2508 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/27/25-9/26/25 0.00 249.99 000342 Embassy Consulting Services, LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 4,000.00 33705 1383 Invoice 10/02/2025 Civilian leadership -K. Castellanos 0.00 4,000.00 000370 FedEX 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 22.02 33706 8-963-10958 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fedex shipment 0.00 22.02 001997 Flowbird America Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 715.05 33707 IV148517 Invoice 10/02/2025 Pay stations 7/2025 0.00 715.05 000382 Frontier Communications 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 829.33 33708 2090946840/10 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/10/25-10/9/25 0.00 221.12 5621560001/10 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/8/25-10/7/25 0.00 191.76 5625986069/9-2 Invoice 10/02/2025 Instructor services 8/25/25-9/24/25 0.00 170.20 7148911483/10 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/7/25-10/6/25 0.00 246.25 000390 Gary I. Kusunoki 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 270.00 33709 1781 Invoice 10/02/2025 P Cite Hearings 9/2025 0.00 270.00 001515 Golden Meters Service Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 6,610.00 33710 2159 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 7/16/24-9/20/24 0.00 6,610.00 001200 Harrington Industrial Plastic LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 851.88 33711 002TO137 Invoice 10/02/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 564.39 002TO259 Invoice 10/02/2025 Adapter tank 0.00 287.49 000443 Hill's Bros. Lock & Safe 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 139.00 33712 91039 Invoice 10/02/2025 Door locks 0.00 139.00 000484 1 K Electronics 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 49.82 33713 35859 Invoice 10/02/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 49.82 002035 Jeremy Jenks 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 450.00 33714 W52815 Invoice 10/02/2025 Wellness Reimbursement Program FY 25/ 0.00 450.00 000525 Joe Garcia 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 400.00 33715 W54481 Invoice 10/02/2025 Wellness Program Reimbursement FY 25/ 0.00 400.00 001744 Labor Law Poster Service 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 417.00 33716 A13645291973 Invoice 10/02/2025 2026 Labor Law Posters 0.00 417.00 000600 Long Beach Transit 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 10,000.00 33717 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 5 of 13 Check Report Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Payable 0 Payable Type Post Date Payable Description 10009647 Invoice 10/02/2025 Fixed route services for public transit FY 2 002347 Los Angeles County Police Canine Association 10/06/2025 Regular W54484 Invoice 10/02/2025 LACPCA 2025 Advanced K9 Seminar- V. R 002034 Matthew Corb 10/06/2025 Regular 9.4.2025 Invoice 10/02/2025 Expense reimb:Swift water tech. training W52260 Invoice 10/02/2025 Wellness Reimbursement Program FY 25/ 000641 MCI Comm Services 10/06/2025 Regular 7DL26042/9-25 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 9/2025 001452 Mercury Disposal Systems, CA Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 66� Invoice 10/02/2025 Battery recycling 001298 Michael LaPlante 10/06/2025 Regular W52702 Invoice 10/02/2025 Reimb. for CWEA Cert. Renewal 002345 Multi -Agency Support Services 10/06/2025 Regular 9.16.25 Invoice 10/02/2025 Training -A. Nishimura 000709 NU Kote 10/06/2025 Regular 08 04 25Stewart Invoice 10/02/2025 CDBG Bsthroom Access. - Stewart- 351 001719 Occupational Health Centers of California, A Mr 10/06/2025 Regular 88097597 Invoice 10/02/2025 Pre employment exam 9/3/25 000718 OCTMA 10/06/2025 Regular FY 25/26 Invoice 10/02/2025 OCTMA Annual Dues FY 25/26 000733 Orange County Sheriff's Dept. 10/06/2025 Regular W54483 Invoice 10/02/2025 Training 1/12/26-1/16/26-R. Rivera & TJ B 000780 Pro -Line Industrial Products Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 1012112 Invoice 10/02/2025 Salt remover&Graf away 001612 Rose City Label 10/06/2025 Regular 164882 Invoice 10/02/2025 Jr Police Stickers 000846 Safeshred Company, Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 364047 Invoice 10/02/2025 Shredding 8/2025 002344 Savage Training Group LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 3174 Invoice 10/02/2025 Sup Seminar- Bedard, Mathias, Balderram 3314 Invoice 10/02/2025 Training - Rael-Brook, Viebrock, & Hendrix 000871 Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce 10/06/2025 Regular 11389 Invoice 10/02/2025 2025 Board of Directors Installation Dinne 11391 Invoice 10/02/2025 State of the County Luncheon 000897 So. California Gas Co. 10/06/2025 Regular 02860957055/92 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/18/25-9/17/25 03490945007/9 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/18/25-9/17/25 03494644572/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 03910957004/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/18/25-9/17/25 06430986007/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 08113165917/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 08119376542/8- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 7/17/25-8/17/25 08950966039/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 12080919009/9 Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/15/25-9/16/25 14830985009/9- Invoice - 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 16300985005/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 16720965009/9- Invoice 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/18/25 000904 Southern Calif. Edison 10/06/2025 Regular Date Range: 10/04/2025 -10/17/2025 DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DlscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 400.00 33718 0.00 400.00 0.00 1,048.00 33719 0.00 598.00 0.00 450.00 0.00 39.38 33720 0.00 39.38 0.00 40.00 33721 0.00 40.00 0.00 114.00 33722 0.00 114.00 0.00 220.00 33723 0.00 220.00 0.00 3,150.00 33724 0.00 3,150.00 0.00 189.00 33725 0.00 189.00 0.00 100.00 33726 0.00 100.00 0.00 260.00 33727 0.00 260.00 0.00 948.28 33728 0.00 948.28 0.00 466.40 33729 0.00 466.40 0.00 90.00 33730 0.00 90.00 0.00 2,800.02 33731 0.00 1,888.02 0.00 912.00 0.00 510.00 33732 0.00 120.00 0.00 390.00 0.00 1,175.91 33733 0.00 26.17 0.00 50.76 0.00 75.18 0.00 486.95 0.00 111.87 0.00 46.06 0.00 50.73 0.00 34.15 0.00 50.35 0.00 191.29 0.00 19.42 0.00 32.98 0.00 26,750.94 33734 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 6 of 13 Check Report Payment Date Payment Type Vendor Number Vendor Name Payable fl Payable Type 700062894036/9 Invoice 700106041454/9 Invoice 700133092229/9 Invoice 700173536680/9 Invoice 700194580125/9 Invoice 700291035208/9 Invoice 700348731111/9 Invoice 700385769549/9 Invoice 700403901071/9 Invoice 700467732226/9 Invoice 700486484346/9 Invoice 700513903216/9 Invoice 001447 462278 002175 462140 001013 8946 001030 63098 001038 V5018153 001043 5159070 Suzanne Hanh Watts Invoice Tselane L Gardner Invoice Uniform Depot, Inc. Invoice V & V Manufacturing Invoice Vermont Systems Inc. Invoice Victor Stanley, Inc. Invoice 001153 Payment Date Payment Type Post Date Payable Description 10/02/2025. Services 8/19/25-9/17/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/11/25-9/9/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/14/25-9/14/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/17/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/13/25-9/11/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/13/25-9/11/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/13/25-9/11/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/17/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/13/25-9/11/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/12/25-9/10/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/19/25-9/17/25 10/02/2025 Services 8/14/25-9/14/25 0.00 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 Instructor services 6/17/25-8/26/25 09/25/2025 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 Instructor services 8/23/25-9/22/25 369534 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 VIP Uniform 0.00 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 Badges 09/25/2025 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 Membership punch cards 542 10/06/2025 Regular 10/02/2025 Stephen Brown -Jeffrey's Bench 001153 Acco Engineered Systems Inc 2069809 0 Invoice 09/25/2025 072 30157 Invoice 09/25/2025 20731380 Invoice 09/25/2025 000034 1229673 10/06/2025 Regular HVAC Maintenance & Repair Services 6/4 HVAC Maintenance & Repair Svcs 8/26/2 HVAC Maintenance & Repair Services 8/3 All American Asph./Aggregates 10/06/2025 Regular Invoice 09/25/2025 Cold mix Date Range: 10/04/2025-10/17/2025 DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Discount Amount Payable Amount 0.00 1,742.90 0.00 4,394.01 0.00 16.57 0.00 15.81 0.00 5,188.47 0.00 2,216.30 0.00 10,648.52 0.00 20.36 0.00 1,114.56 0.00 1,362.57 0.00 15.81 0.00 15.06 0.00 321.75 33735 0.00 321.75 0.00 17.55 33736 0.00 17.55 0.00 200.72 33737 0.00 200.72 0.00 253.35 33738 0.00 253.35 0.00 528.48 33739 0.00 528.48 0.00 4,157.38 33740 0.00 4,157.38 0.00 1,966.11 33741 0.00 808.00 0.00 283.00 0.00 875.11 0.00 1,433.38 33742 0.00 1,433.38 000046 Americas Printer.com 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,346.17 33743 1263401 Invoice 09/25/2025 Property and Evidence forms and envelop 0.00 1,346.17 000086 Bay Hardware 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,479.41 33744 323839 Invoice 09/25/2025 Sign & potting mix 0.00 58.00 369495 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer& batt 0.00 41.00 369516 Invoice 09/25/2025 Cleaning supplies 0.00 28.68 369534 Invoice 09/25/2025 Cables 0.00 144.21 369535 Invoice 09/25/2025 Gloves 0.00 45.84 542 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hanging strip 0.00 6.29 369545 Invoice 09/25/2025 Key cutting 0,00 8,72 369549 Invoice 09/25/2025 Knob 0.00 56.79 369553 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 122.22 369558 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 39.71 369563 Invoice 09/25/2025 Semipaste remover 0.00 18.52 369580 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer 0.00 1.44 369584 Invoice 09/25/2025 Triflow teflon 0.00 15.40 369590 Invoice 09/25/2025 Cable tie 0.00 9.92 3_.69601 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 17.94 369607 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer 0.00 17.09 369608 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer 0.00 7.89 369609 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 3.10 369617 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 89.37 69619 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer& Sm 0.00 10.51 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 7 of 13 Check Report Date Range: 10/04/2025 -10/17/2025 Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Payable# Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 369620 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer 0.00 15.54 369638 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 47.51 369653 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 44.85 369656 Invoice 09/25/2025 Cable tie & lag shield pk 0.00 40.04 - 369657 Invoice 09/25/2025 Tape 0.00 32.71 369664 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer & Syri 0.00 15.92 369668 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 102.11 369671 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 124.97 369686 Invoice 09/25/2025 Screws/nuts/bolts/anchors/washer & shie 0.00 13.40 369688 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 218.23 369691 Invoice 09/25/2025 Closure plugs & gloves 0.00 18.15 $69693 Invoice 09/25/2025 Spray paint 0.00 23.88 369702 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hose clamp 0.00 19.81 69706 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hose clamp 0.00 4.36 369728 Invoice 09/25/2025 Key cutting 0.00 4.36 369732 Invoice 09/25/2025 Wood 0.00 10.93 **Void** 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 0.00 33745 002129 BKF Engineers 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 331.60 33746 2509 134 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 7/28/25-8/24/25 0.00 331.60 000282 Delillo Chevrolet 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 85.68 33747 364963 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4111 0.00 78.25 364972 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4111 0.00 7.43 000286 Delta Motor Company 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 4,966.44 33748 25575 Invoice 09/25/2025 Repair 1st street sewer lift station pump. 0.00 4,966.44 000371 Felix Ulloa 10/05/2025 Regular 0.00 145.41 33749 2434 Invoice 09/25/2025 Stihl chainsaw chain 0.00 145.41 002158 Hubbell Lenoir City 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,469.96 33750 445596390 Invoice 09/25/2025 Composite meter lid plugs 0.00 1,469.96 001753 Infinity Technologies 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 4,725.00 33751 4261 Invoice - 09/25/2025 GIS 8/2025 0.00 4,725.00 001821 Long Beach Ford LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 356.31 33752 226464 Invoice 09/25/2025 PW #50 0.00 338.41 226614 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4115 0.00 17.90 001598 Los Angeles Truck Centers LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 1,248.69 33753 RA220D4206002 Invoice 09/25/2025 PW#65 0.00 1,248.69 000674 Morrison Tire Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 2,569.48 33754 318069 Invoice 09/25/2025 LG tires 0.00 704.80 318274 Invoice 09/25/2025 LG#5110 0.00 618.11 318351 Invoice 09/25/2025 I'D #4138&PW#50 0.00 1,246.57 001705 MRS Environmental Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 10,059.63 33755 639-2025-07 Invoice 09/25/2025 Solar Initial Study 7/2025 0.00 7,770.31 639-2025-08 Invoice 09/25/2025 Solar initial Study 8/2025 0.00 2,289.32 000711 NV51nc. 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 25,685.20 33756 466462 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 7/2025 0.00 25,685.20 002227 PARTNERS IN CONTROL, INC. 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 14,118.78 33757 12243 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 7/29/25-8/14/25 0.00 14,118.78 001664 Psomas 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 853.75 33758 225936 Invoice 09/25/2025 EIR 8/2025 0.00 853.75 001976 R.I.C. Construction Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 0.00 161,242.07 33759 PP -06 Invoice 09/25/2025 SS1903 -Sewer Pump Station #35 Upgrad 0.00 161,242.07 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 8 of 13 Check Report Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description 002124 RCR Traffic Specialist 10/06/2025 Regular 12497 Invoice 09/25/2025 Emergency Evac signs 001820 Sierra Analytical Labs Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 5104003 Invoice 09/25/2025 Water chemicals 001761 Silsby Strategic Advisors, Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular SO 75GR Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/2025 QU Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/2025 000898 SoCal Auto & Truck Parts Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 4 150 Invoice 09/25/2025 LG#5110 489661 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4110 4 153 Invoice 09/25/2025 Tire patches 645558 Invoice 09/25/2025 Shop supplies 645595 Invoice 09/25/2025 PW #129 646268 Invoice 09/25/2025 PD#4125 646382 Invoice 09/25/2025 Coolant 000902 South Coast Supply 10/06/2025 Regular 157689063-001 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 157949175-001 Invoice 09/25/2025 Granite 001754 Tranly LLC 10/06/2025 Regular 41392 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/2025 001005 Transtech Engineers, Inc 10/06/2025 Regular 242, 46 989 Invoice 09/25/2025 Staffing 7/2025 20254990 Invoice 09/25/2025 Plan check 7/2025 001009 Turtle & Hughes, Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 6920208-00 Invoice 09/25/2025 Hardware supplies 001141 United Site Services of California Inc 10/06/2025 Regular INV -5576872 Invoice 09/25/2025 Eddison Park -Services 9/2/25-9/29/25 002028 Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 5890612813 Invoice 09/25/2025 Uniforms 5890616208 Invoice 09/25/2025 Uniforms 5890619029 Invoice 09/25/2025 Uniforms 58906612813 Invoice 09/25/2025 Uniforms 001055 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 10/06/2025 Regular 233226 Invoice 09/25/2025 Services 8/16/25-8/31/25 001866 Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center 10/06/2025 Regular 08-2025-SealBea Invoice 09/25/2025 Wildlife intakes 8/2025 002214 Taco Surf Cantina 10/09/2025 Regular 011 Invoice 10/09/2025 Staff development day - lunch 001318 Debra L. Reilly, A Profesional Law Corporation 10/09/2025 Regular 1458 Invoice 10/09/2025 Internal Fact Finding Investigation 4/4/25- 001289 Joe Acura 10/09/2025 Regular W52701 Invoice 10/09/2025 Wellness Reimbursement Program FY 25/ 000039 American Elevator Services Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 5133942 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 9/2025 000067 Ardurra Group Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 166616 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 5/2025 171984 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/2025 000084 Battery Systems Inc 10/09/2025 Regular Date Range: 30/04/2025-10/17/2025 DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DiscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 408.60 33760 0.00 408.60 0.00 3,171.00 33761 0.00 3,171.00 0.00 9,012.21 33762 0.00 7,212.21 0.00 1,800.00 0.00 286.21 33763 0.00 26.78 0.00 64.23 0.00 35.62 0.00 33.82 0.00 18.34 0.00 48.47 0.00 58.95 0.00 303.05 33764 0.00 145.37 0.00 157.68 0.00 260.00 33765 0.00 260.00 0.00 72,063.65 33766 0.00 35,427.50 0.00 36,636.15 0.00 122.36 33767 0.00 122.36 0.00 377.06 33768 0.00 377.06 0.00 1,167.65 33769 0.00 312.43 0.00 259.42 0.00 283.37 0.00 312.43 0.00 29,568.00 33770 0.00 29,568.00 0.00 1,000.00 33771 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 955.90 33772 0.00 955.90 0.00 27,182.50 33773 0.00 27,182.50 0.00 400.00 33774 0.00 400.00 0.00 90.00 33775 0.00 90.00 0.00 17,946.80 33776 0.00 12,369.30 0.00 5,577.50 0.00 292.46 33777 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 9 of 13 Check Report Date Range: 10/04/2025-10/17/2025 Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number Payable# Payable Type Post Date Payable Description DlscountAmount Payable Amount 7861111 Invoice 10/09/2025 PD #4109 & stock 0.00 292.46 000086 Bay Hardware 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 951.43 33778 333865 Invoice 10/09/2025 Stop tips 0.00 21.85 9749 Invoice 10/09/2025 Padlock 0.00 41.71 369757 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 57.06 762 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 73.45 369770 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 19.46 69778 Invoice 10/09/2025 Rake 0.00 61.07 369794 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 71.54 369802 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 55.64 369809 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 47.64 369811 Invoice 10/09/2025 Steel Bar- LG #5140 0.00 17.87 36 812 Invoice 10/09/2025 Tape 0.00 21.78 369827 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 147.20 369835 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 23.06 369836 Invoice 10/09/2025 Spark plugs 0.00 21.81 369856 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 75.19 369858 Invoice 10/09/2025 Gloves 0.00 11.92 369908 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 183.18 000123 BrightView Landscape Services Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 54,963.72 33779 9497961 Invoice 10/09/2025 Landscape Maint. of Parks & Hardicape A 0.00 54,963.72 000128 Brownells, Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 292.85 33780 2025412324401 Invoice 10/09/2025 Sling atachments- Trigger pull guage 0.00 292.85 000152 Campbell Printing, Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 777.86 33781 C25-042 Invoice 10/09/2025 72 Hour Parking Notices and FI Cards 0.00 777.86 002120 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 6,833.00 33782 599600 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/3/25-8/30/25 0.00 6,833.00 002186 ENFORMION LLC 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 1,500.00 33783 35613 Invoice 10/09/2025 Annual software renewal fee 0.00 1,500.00 000371 Felix Ulloa 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 247.76 33784 2458 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 0.00 247.76 000381 Free - Lance Masonry 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 11,225.00 33785 2025-230 Invoice 10/09/2025 Maint. Services 0.00 11,225.00 002087 HEAD USA INC 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 996.48 33786 5193870805 Invoice 10/09/2025 Marathon supplies 0.00 996.48 000440 HF&H Consultants LLC 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 3,624.50 33787 9722407 Invoice 10/12/2025 Services 7/2025 0.00 2,271.00 9722493 Invoice 10/16/2025 Services 8/2025 0.00 1,353.50 001380 Jimni Systems Inc 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 2,095.64 33788 38455 Invoice 10/09/2025 Emergency installation of pump at 1st Str 0.00 2,095.64 001470 JMC Welding and Manufacturing 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 9,813.95 33789 INV57123 Invoice 10/09/2025 Emergency Lampson Well gate repair 0.00 9,813.95 001596 Logo Sportswear Inc 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 295.25 33790 623954 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo Sportswear - Staff Shirts 0.00 295.25 001821 Long Beach Ford LLC 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 339.46 33791 226916 Invoice 10/09/2025 PD#410 0.00 339.46 000674 Morrison Tire Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 142.67 33792 318575 Invoice 10/09/2025 PD #4125 0.00 142.67 000711 NV51nc. 10/09/2025 Regular 0.00 22,910.00 33793 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 10 of 13 Check Report Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Payable It Payable Type Post Date Payable Description 473613 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/2025 474218 Invoice 10/09/2025 Services 8/2025 001687 Pacific Security Fence South Inc 10/09/2025 Regular 1456 Invoice 10/09/2025 1st Street Enclosure City yard Gate 1462 Invoice 10/09/2025 Install fencing at Zoeter Dog park 000898 SoCal Auto & Truck Parts Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 489448 Invoice 10/09/2025 PW 885 7149 Invoice 10/09/2025 PW #66 000902 South Coast Supply 10/09/2025 Regular 153575979-001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Hardware supplies 158204523-001 Invoice 10/09/2025 Gravel 000921 Stantec Consulting Services Inc 10/09/2025 Regular 2449816 Invoice 10/09/2025 SGR Trash Mitigat. Feasib. Study Svcs thru 000980 The Counseling Team international 10/09/2025 Regular INVIO6177 Invoice 10/09/2025 Counseling 9/2025 001141 United Site Services of California Inc 10/09/2025 Regular 114-14124796 Invoice 10/09/2025 West End Pump Station - Services 9/9/25 - INV -5612308 Invoice 10/09/2025 Heather Park -Services 9/19/25-10/16/25 002028 Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. 10/09/2025 Regular 5890601998 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890606000 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890609397 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890612814 Invoice 10/02/2025 Logo mats 5890616209 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890619030 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890622980 Invoice 10/09/2025 Uniforms 5890622981 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890625834 Invoice 10/09/2025 Uniforms 5890625835 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890629763 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 5890633167 Invoice 10/09/2025 Uniforms 5890633168 Invoice 10/09/2025 Logo mats 001073 California State Distribution Unit 10/09/2025 Regular INV0004522 Invoice 10/03/2025 Child Support INV0004523 Invoice 10/03/2025 Child Support INV0004524 Invoice 10/03/2025 Child Support 000191 City Employees Associates 10/09/2025 Regular INV0004519 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues 000714 OCEA 10/09/2025 Regular INV0004525 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues 000873 Seal Beach Police Management Association 10/09/2025 Regular INV0004543 Invoice 10/03/2025 Union Dues 001023 US Bank 10/09/2025 Regular INV0004506 Invoice 10/03/2025 PARS Retirement INV0004507 Invoice 10/03/2025 PARS Retirement INV0004526 Invoice 10/03/2025 PARS Retirement INV0004527 Invoice 10/03/2025 PARS Retirement Total Regular: Date Range: 10/04/2025 - 10/17/2025 DiscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DiscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 11,610.00 0.00 11,300.00 0.00 22,985.00 33794 0.00 9,985.00 0.00 13,000.00 0.00 51.30 33795 0.00 42.27 0.00 9.03 0.00 684.07 33796 0.00 371.44 0.00 312.63 0.00 26,888.25 33797 0.00 26,888.25 0.00 1,200.00 33798 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 730.76 33799 0.00 353.70 0.00 377.06 0.00 1,893.14 33800 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 245.70 0.00 130.83 0.00 196.11 0.00 130.83 0.00 130.83 0.00 143.03 0.00 130.83 0.00 1,867.83 33801 0.00 372.46 0.00 230.76 0.00 1,264.61 0.00 161.56 33802 0.00 161.56 0.00 242.36 33803 0.G0 242.36 0.00 600.00 33804 0.00 600.00 0.00 3,942.94 33805 0.00 5.75 0.00 1.20 0.00 3,253.71 0.00 682.28 0.00 947,086.88 WIZU/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 11 of 13 Check Report Vendor Number Vendor Name Payable# Payable Type Post Date Payment Type: Bank Draft 000787 Public Employees Retirement System Ck 1.10.25 Invoice 10/07/2025 000787 Public Employees Retirement System CM0000228 Credit Memo 10/0//2025 000787 Public Employees Retirement System CM0000229 Credit Memo 10/07/2025 000349 Employment Development Dept. INV0004549 Invoice 10/07/2025 000470 Internal Revenue Service INV0004550 Invoice 10/07/2025 Payment Date Payment Type Payable Description 10/07/2025 Bank Draft PERSr for Holiday Pay 1.10.25 10/07/2025 Bank Draft Pt RS Retirement 10/07/2025 Bank Draft PERS Retirement 10/07/2025 Bank Draft State Taxes 10/07/2025 Bank Draft Federal Taxes Total Bank Draft: Date Range: 10/04/2025-10/17/2025 DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DiscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 8,258.30 DFTOD04772 0.00 8,258.30 0.00 -1,620.68 DFT0004774 0.00 -1,620.68 0.00 -497.81 DFT0004775 0.00 -497.81 0.00 50.93 DFT0004777 0.00 50.93 0.00 133.68 DFT0004778 0.00 133.68 0.00 6,324.42 Discount Bank Code APBW General Summary 0.00 Payable Payment Payment Type Count Count Regular Checks 267 122 Manual Checks 0 0 Voided Checks 0 1 Bank Drafts 5 5 EFT's 88 46 360 174 Date Range: 10/04/2025-10/17/2025 DlscountAmount PaymentAmount Number DiscountAmount Payable Amount 0.00 8,258.30 DFTOD04772 0.00 8,258.30 0.00 -1,620.68 DFT0004774 0.00 -1,620.68 0.00 -497.81 DFT0004775 0.00 -497.81 0.00 50.93 DFT0004777 0.00 50.93 0.00 133.68 DFT0004778 0.00 133.68 0.00 6,324.42 Discount Payment 0.00 947,086.88 0.D0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,324.42 0.00 232,600.76 0.00 1,186,012.06 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 12 of 13 Check Report Date Range: 10/04/2025 - 10/17/2025 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 13 of 13 All Bank Codes Check Summary Payable Payment Payment Type Count Count Discount Payment Regular Checks 267 122 0.00 947,086.88 Manual Checks 0 0 0.00 0.00 Voided Checks 0 1 0.00 0.00 Bank Drafts 5 5 0.00 6,324.42 EFT's 88 46 0.00 232,600.76 360 174 0.00 1,186,012.06 Fund Summary Fund Name Period Amount 999 Pooled Cash Fund 10/2025 1,186,012.06 1,186,012.06 Date Range: 10/04/2025 - 10/17/2025 10/20/2025 10:12:03 AM Page 13 of 13 CITY OF SEAL BEACH Investment Report 9/30/2025 Investments: LAIF City Securities Total Investments: Cash. Deposits. & Accrued Interest: BMO General Account Less outstanding checks Farmers & Merchants Bank (Parking) Cash with Bank of New York Total Cash & Deposits: Total Investments, Cash, and Deposits: In compliance with the California Government Code Section 53646 and Resolution Number 6038; the City Treasurer of Seal Beach hereby certifies that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenue are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months. Investments in this report meet the requirements of the City of Seal Beach's adopted investment policy. Respectfully submitted, i BarbaYa Arenado Director of Finance/City Treasurer Book Value 22,253,845.27 30,624,655.34 52,878,500.61 2,733,739.94 (284,506.76) 195.37 158,355.74 2,607,784.29 55,486,284.90 NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Gallegos City Manager Market Value 22,253,845.27 31,194,466.66 53,448,311.93 CITY OF SEAL BEACH Issuer Settlement Date Preliminary Investments Detail Report 9/30/2025 Maturity Date Interest Rate Book Value Market Value Years to Maturity Source of Market Valuation LAIF CITY: N/A N/A 4.212% 22,253,845.27 22,253 845.27 N/A LAIF Statement Total LAIF., 22,253,845.27 22,253,845.27 US Treasury Notes 02/18/22 01/31/26 0.375% 80,281.84 83,988.33 0.34 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 05/04/22 01/31/26 0.375% 204,609.38 222,322.05 0.34 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 03/08/21 02/28/26 0.500% 532,870.31 532,507.50 0.41 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 12/07/21 02/28/26 0.500% 564,367.19 571,952.50 0.41 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/04/21 05/31/26 0.750% 139,693.75 137,191.74 0.67 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/08/22 05/31/26 0.750% 265,780.47 284,182.89 0.67 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 04/07/22 09/30/26 0.875% 391,315.43 413,255.98 1.00 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 07/07/22 02/15/27 2.250% 487,070.31 490,449.00 1.38 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 08/05/22 04/30/27 0.500% 625,625.00 666,449.00 1.58 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 01/06/23 04/30/27 2.750% 723,781.25 749,520.36 1.58 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 08/10/22 06/30/27 0.500% 323,709.38 345,766.33 1.75 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 09/06/22 08/15/27 2.250% 474,042.97 487,597.50 1.87 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 11/03/22 09/30/27 4.125% 74,510.74 75,723.60 2.00 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 12/08/22 10/31/27 4.125% 162,225.00 161,624.96 2.08 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/05/23 12/31/27 3.875% 552,191.41 553,029.40 2.25 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 02/08/23 01/31/28 0.750% 314,413.28 341,788.19 2.34 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 05/04/23 03/31/28 3.625% 302,859.38 300,081.90 2.50 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 05/11/23 03/31/28 1.250% 364,579.10 382,281.93 2.50 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 05/03/24 04/30/29 4.625% 170,391.80 175,425.38 3.58 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/07/24 05/31/29 4.500% 110,996.88 113,085.17 3.67 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/06/24 05/31/29 4.500% 590,095.90 601,407.50 3.67 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 07/22/24 06/30/29 4.250% 286,146.68 290,666.66 3.75 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 07/03/24 06/30/29 4.250% 303,272.46 311,064.32 3.75 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 08/02/24 07/31/29 4.000% 80,556.25 80,884.40 3.84 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 09/05/24 08/31/29 3.625% 901,863.28 897,820.20 3.92 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 10/03/24 09/30/29 3.500% 488,698.44 486,535.70 4.00 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 11/15/24 10/31/29 4.125% 248,144.53 253,974.50 4.09 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 11/04/24 10/31/29 4.125% 324,200.20 330,166.85 4.09 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 12/06/24 11/30/29 4.125% 721,293.75 731,587.68 4.17 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 01/07/25 12/31/29 4.375% 453,986.91 466,765.85 4.25 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 02/05/25 01/31/30 4.250% 408,478.52 418,680.52 4.34 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 03/05/25 02/28/30 4.000% 310,000.00 313,596.62 4.42 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 06/05/25 05/31/30 3.750% 593,156.25 600,421.80 4.67 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 07/01/25 06/30/30 3.875% 215,646.68 216,318.60 4.75 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 08/01/25 07/31/30 3.875% 512,465.23 518,098.24 4.84 Bank of New York US Treasury Notes 09/03/25 08/31/30 3.625% 865,378.13 865,514.28 4.92 Bank of New York NJ Turnpike Authority Txble 02/04/21 01/01/26 1.047% 60,000.00 59,532.06 0.25 Bank of New York FHMS K061 A2 05/24/23 11/01/26 3.347% 185,688.10 189,678.10 1.09 Bank of New York FHMS K065 A2 08/18/23 04/01/27 3.243% 160,284.77 168,198.34 1.50 Bank of New York Years to Source of Market Issuer Settlement Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Book Value Market Value Maturity Valuation FHMS K066 A2 08/22/23 06/01/27 3.117% 247,816.41 261,538.31 1.67 Bank of New York FHMS K507 Al 09/28/23 04/01/28 4.800% 242,543.14 250,169.29 2.50 Bank of New York FHMS K506 Al 09/14/23 05/01/28 4.650% 139,750.10 143,818.13 2.59 Bank of New York FHMS KJ46 Al 07/27/23 06/01/28 4.777% 225,679.11 227,612.12 2.67 Bank of New York FHMS K505 A2 07/20/23 06/01/28 4.819% 282,796.64 285,263.16 2.67 Bank of New York FNA 2023-M6 A2 07/31/23 07/01/28 4.190% 267,520.38 272,647.42 2.75 Bank of New York FHMS KJ47Al 09/28/23 08/01/28 5.272% 110,144.29 112,192.88 2.84 Bank of New York FHMS K506 A2 09/14/23 08/01/28 4.650% 280,784.00 289,477.92 2.84 Bank of New York FHMS K508 A2 10/19/23 08/01/28 4.740% 283,638.56 295,601.93 2.84 Bank of New York FHMS K509 A2 10/31/23 09/01/28 4.850% 212,985.74 225,052.08 2.92 Bank of New York FHMS K507 A2 09/28/23 09/01/28 4.800% 276,653.16 285,558.56 2.92 Bank of New York FHMS K510A2 11/21/23 10/01/28 5.069% 114,667.54 118,108.45 3.01 Bank of New York FHMS K511 A2 12/07/23 10/01/28 4.860% 164,525.96 168,754.25 3.01 Bank of New York FHMS K512 A2 12/21/23 11/01/28 5.000% 151,400.70 153,853.65 3.09 Bank of New York FHMS K513 A2 01/18/24 12/01/28 4.724% 171,698.13 173,218.95 3.17 Bank of New York FHMS K514 A2 02/08/24 12/01/28 4.572% 176,749.83 177,562.35 3.17 Bank of New York FHMS K518 A2 03/28/24 01/01/29 5.400% 209,949.73 213,104.88 3.26 Bank of New York FHMS K517 A2 03/14/24 01/01/29 5.355% 257,496.50 260,050.75 3.26 Bank of New York FHMS K515A2 02/22/24 01/01/29 5.400% 287,543.20 290,435.60 3.26 Bank of New York FHMS K516 A2 03/07/24 01/01/29 5.477% 288,399.16 291,128.04 3.26 Bank of New York FHMS K520 A2 04/30/24 03/01/29 5.180% 160,649.44 165,510.88 3.42 Bank of New York FHMS K524 A2 07/25/24 05/01/29 4.720% 241,473.84 245,257.44 3.59 Bank of New York FHMSK522A2 06/13/24 05/01/29 4.803% 292,305.42 299,187.77 3.59 Bank of New York FHMS K529 A2 10/16/24 09/01/29 4.791% 122,398.44 123,052.44 3.92 Bank of New York FHMS K535 A2 02/13/25 11/01/29 4.690% 150,092.70 153,383.55 4.09 Bank of New York FHMS K533 A2 01/16/25 12/01/29 4.230% 170,477.82 176,019.73 4.17 Bank of New York FHMS K541A2 06/12/25 02/01/30 4.348% 134,995.14 136,395.90 4.34 Bank of New York Bristol-Myers Squibb Cc 06/21/21 11/13/25 0.750% 99,994.04 100,587.42 0.12 Bank of New York Microsoft Corp 02/25/22 08/08/26 2.400% 353,881.50 345,812.60 0.85 Bank of New York Paccar Financial Corp 08/11/23 08/10/26 5.050% 210,863.10 212,087.19 0.86 Bank of New York Bank of America N/A 10/24/23 08/18/26 5.526% 228,063.40 232,861.20 0.88 Bank of New York Target Corp 01/24/22 01/15/27 1.950% 39,932.00 39,050.64 1.29 Bank of New York Target Corp 01/31/22 01/15/27 1.950% 174,893.25 170,846.55 1.29 Bank of New York Goldman Sachs Bank USA 05/22/25 05/21/27 5.414% 100,629.00 100,767.60 1.64 Bank of New York Goldman Sachs Bank USA 05/22/25 05/21/27 5.414% 120,754.80 120,921.12 1.64 Bank of New York Home Depot Inc 01/30/23 09/14/27 2.800% 278,303.00 289,405.03 1.96 Bank of New York Kenvue Inc 06/30/25 03/22/28 5.050% 163,777.60 163,465.76 2.48 Bank of New York JP Morgan Chase & Company 08/09/24 05/01/28 3.540% 179,322.35 183,383.10 2.59 Bank of New York Apple Inc 05/18/23 05/10/28 4.000% 425,493.00 427,459.05 2.61 Bank of New York John Deere Capital 07/14/23 07/14/28 4.950% 94,858.45 97,556.64 2.79 Bank of New York John Deere Capital 07/18/23 07/14/28 4.950% 116,116.65 118,094.88 2.79 Bank of New York National Rutal Util Coop 08/25/25 08/25/28 4.150% 114,871.20 115,310.85 2.90 Bank of New York Citibank NA Corp Notes 05/03/24 09/29/28 5.803% 147,804.30 152,091.37 3.00 Bank of New York Citibank NA Corp Notes 09/29/23 09/29/28 5.803% 270,000.00 283,204.62 3.00 Bank of New York Toyota Motor Credit Corp 01/10/24 01/05/29 4.650% 165,580.80 168,025.11 3.27 Bank of New York Bank of America Corp (Callable) 04/02/25 01/24/29 4.979% 212,326.80 213,881.64 3.32 Bank of New York Years to Source of Market Issuer Settlement Date Maturity Date Interest Rate Book Value Market Value Maturity Valuation State Street Corp 08/20/24 02/20/29 4.530% 140,000.00 141,498.98 3.39 Bank of New York Blackrock Funding Inc 03/14/24 03/14/29 4.700% 24,954.75 25,572.18 3.45 Bank of New York Blackrock Funding Inc 04/11/24 03/14/29 4.700% 139,350.40 143,204.18 3.45 Bank of New York Adobe Inc (Callabel) 04/05/24 04/04/29 4.800% 95,125.40 97,561.58 3.51 Bank of New York Adobe Inc (Callabel) 04/04/24 04/04/29 4.800% 114,828.65 118,100.86 3.51 Bank of New York Bank of New York Mellon 05/04/25 04/20/29 4.729% 439,384.80 442,145.31 3.56 Bank of New York Mastercard Inc (Callable) 06/27/24 06/01/29 2.950% 229,662.50 241,574.50 3.67 Bank of New York PepsiCo Inc (Callable) 07/17/24 07/17/29 4.500% 139,783.00 142,488.22 3.80 Bank of New York ELI LILLY & CO 08/14/24 08/14/29 4.200% 49,890.50 50,353.95 3.87 Bank of New York ELI LILLY & CO 08/14/24 08/14/29 4.200% 170,248.20 171,203.43 3.87 Bank of New York CISCO Systems Inc 04/22/25 02/24/30 4.750% 217,713.30 220,591.72 4.41 Bank of New York CISCO Systems Inc 04/30/25 02/24/30 4.750% 230,159.25 230,851.80 4.41 Bank of New York JPMorgan Chase & Cc (Callable) 04/28/25 04/22/30 5.581% 268,088.60 271,566.62 4.56 Bank of New York Wallmart Inc (Callable) 04/28/25 04/28/30 4.350% 84,852.95 86,395.19 4.58 Bank of New York Wallmart Inc (Callable) 05/02/25 04/28/30 4.350% 353,132.50 355,744.90 4.58 Bank of New York Cooperat Rabobank UA/NY Cert Dep 07/20/23 07/17/26 5.080% 280,000.00 283,328.64 0.79 Bank of New York PNC Bank N/A (Callable) 12/08/22 10/25/27 3.100% 245,455.60 255,674.64 2.07 Bank of New York Morgan Stanley Bank NA Bank Notes 05/31/24 05/26/28 5.504% 280,590.80 286,171.20 2.65 Bank of New York HAROT 2023-3 A3 08/22/23 02/18/28 5.410% 123,410.27 124,352.97 2.39 Bank of New York TAOT 2023-C A3 08/15/23 04/17/28 5.160% 43,714.51 44,002.10 2.55 Bank of New York TACT 2023-D A3 11/14/23 08/15/28 5.540% 54,650.83 55,285.33 2.88 Bank of New York FITAT 2023-1 A3 08/23/23 08/15/28 5.530% 146,209.94 147,565.10 2.88 Bank of New York CHAIT 2023-A1 A 09/15/23 09/15/28 5.160% 224,937.63 227,712.15 2.96 Bank of New York AMXCA 2023-3 A 09/19/23 09/15/28 5.230% 229,989.72 232,994.60 2.96 Bank of New York HART 2023-C A3 11/13/23 10/16/28 5.540% 76,548.64 77,370.31 3.05 Bank of New York BACCT 2023-A2 A2 12/14/23 11/15/28 4.980% 99,986.57 101,227.10 3.13 Bank of New York GMCAR 2024-1 A3 01/17/24 12/18/28 4.850% 24,994.97 25,157.78 3.22 Bank of New York CHAIT 2024-A1 A 01/31/24 01/16/29 4.600% 249,961.93 252,367.00 3.30 Bank of New York HAROT 2025-1 A3 02/11/25 09/21/29 4.570% 214,993.38 217,358.12 3.98 Bank of New York HART 2025-A A3 03/12/25 10/15/29 4.320% 189,971.97 191,451.22 4.04 Bank of New York TACT 2025-B A3 04/30/25 11/15/29 4.340% 109,993.70 110,896.39 4.13 Bank of New York HART 2025-B A3 06/11/25 12/17/29 4.360% 69,993.68 70,665.42 4.22 Bank of New York HAROT 2025-3 A3 08/12/25 02/21/30 4.040% 169,996.45 170,354.79 4.40 Bank of New York TAOT 2025-C A3 07/30/25 03/15/30 4.110% 124,986.82 125,624.13 4.46 Bank of New York HART 2025-C A3 09/17/25 04/15/30 3.880% 149,975.52 149,829.45 4.54 Bank of New York GMCAR 2025-2 A3 05/14/25 04/16/30 4.280% 49,992.64 50,380.95 4.55 Bank of New York BACCT 2025-A1 A 06/12/25 05/15/30 4.310% 134,999.49 136,544.81 4.62 Bank of New York CCCIT 2025-A1 A 06/26/25 06/21/30 4.300% 299,918.61 303,121.20 4.73 Bank of New York AMXCA 2025-4 A 07/22/25 07/15/30 4.300% 169,975.50 171,824.61 4.79 Bank of New York CHAIT 2025-A1 A 07/25/25 07/15/30 4.160% 239,995.18 241,544.88 4.79 Bank of New York COMET 2025-A1 A 09/16/25 09/16/30 3.820% 184,964.92 184,903.62 -95.10 Bank of New York Total Securities 30,624,655.34 31,194,466.66 U\�QF SERC 6F9�2S AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Appointment SUMMARY OF REQUEST: It is at the request of Mayor Landau that the City Council appoint Susan Perrell to represent District Three on the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Government Code Section 54974: (a) Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any board, commission, or committee for which the legislative body has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination, or other causes, a special vacancy notice shall be posted in the office of the clerk of the local agency, the library designated pursuant to Section 54973, and in other places as directed by the legislative body, not earlier than 20 days before or not later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Final appointment to the board, commission, or committee shall not be made by the legislative body for at least 10 working days after posting the notice of vacancy. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may, if it finds that an emergency exists, fill the unscheduled vacancy immediately. A person appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made pursuant to this section. The term for the appointee will expire December 2028. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. Agenda Item D FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: It is at the request of Mayor Landau that the City Council appoint Susan Perrell to represent District Three on the Planning Commission. SUBMITTED BY: GCoria 0..7farper Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick Ga((egos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager A. Susan Perrell Application (Redacted) Page 2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH Boards — Commissions — Committees Application Name: Susan Perrell Address: Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone Number: Email Address: Cell Phone: Who is your Council Representative? Seal Beach Mayor Lisa Landau Please check the areas of interest: Community & Recreation Environmental X Building & Planning Public Safety Beach & Water Quality Infrastructure RECEIVED OCT 6 6 cilc5 CITY CLLiKK CITY OF BEACH X Other: Please briefly describe: The safety, security, sustainability, and livability of our uniaue and wonderful Seal Beach communitv. Provide a brief background of your experience and/or education that would qualify you for an appointment to a City hoard, commission, or committee: Current Chair of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board. Over 30 years workin professionally as an Environmental Engineer and an Environmental Advisor. Over a decade of community leadership, technical leadership, and advocacy for soil and groundwater cleanups in Seal Beach. Community advocacy for recent City Zoning Code amendments. Seven years managing lame scale development project design, permitting, and public outreach. Decades of regulatory permitting and compliance under CEQA, NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many other federal and state regulatory programs. Ten years managing large waste site cleanups across the U.S. under CERCLA and RCRA. Three vears in federal Government Affairs for a maior corporation. Co -Founder of an environmental management software development corporation. Eight years in exploration geology and geophysics. BSc in Geophysical Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. Signature: Applications will be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk for a period of 2 years. �r {Office Use Only} Date Received: l01W2's Received By: 1�7�� District No. i�0� SEA('ec�9ti f� G� nyy AGENDA STAFF REPORT �1'',,C'QCIFORNP'r DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT: Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council receive and file the report. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: In an effort to further increase transparency, the City Manager provides a quarterly report to the City Council that identifies all contracts executed by the City Manager. The City Manager has the authority to approve and execute contracts up to the amount of $41,818. Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.005 authorizes the City Manager to delegate spending authority to Department Heads. For departments other than the Director of Public Works and the Director of Finance/City Treasurer, this authority shall not exceed $15,000 per purchase or contract. For the Director of Public Works, the limit is established per the City's Charter Section 1010. For the Director of Finance/City Treasurer, other than for Finance Department expenditures which are set at $15,000, there is additional authority to authorize purchases for City Departments up to the City Manager's established contract signing authority. Below is a list of contracts executed by the City Manager and Department Heads for the period of June 1, 2025 — September 30, 2025: Agenda Item E AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT VENDOR AMOUNT PURPOSE EXPIRATION DATE DATE 06/05/2025 Public Works Ron's $23,800.00 Catch Basin 05/19/2026 Maintenance, Cleaning & Inc Maintenance Services 07/28/2025 City Clerk Granicus 9,240.00 Agenda 06/29/2026 PrimeGov/ One Management Meeting Software 7/31/2025 Community Economic & $39,250.00 Amendment 2 11/01/2025 Development Planning Nexus Study Services Impact Fee Program 07/31/2025 Public Works PHPE Services $10,000.00 On -Call 07/18/2026 Professional Automation & Implementation Services 08/08/2025 Public Works JCL Traffic $25,080.00 Special Events 10/02/2026 Services Traffic Control 08/19/2025 Community Sagecrest $41,000.00 Temporary 02/28/2026 Development Planning & Planning Environmental Services 08/22/2025 Public Works Keyser Marston $16,500.00 Real Estate, Until services Associates, Inc. Economic & are completed Financial Consultant Services Fm 09/05/2025 Police Sharp $14,700.00 Professional 07312026 Performance Coaching for Frist Responders 09/12/2025 Public Works San Diego $12,140.00 Internal 09/01/2026 Power, LLC, Combustion dba SDP Power Engine Repair Services & Maintenance 9/18/2025 Public Works Nichols $28,000.00 2026 Pavement Consulting Management 08/18/2026 Engineers, Plan CHTD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is sufficient funding available in the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget. However, as with all City Council approved contracts, all contracts executed under staff's contracting authority are processed internally with review and approval by the City Attorney, Director of Finance, City Clerk and City Manager. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the report. SUBMITTED BY: ie (,aria D. Harte NOTED AND APPROVED: Pa.-fri zGai&( o-,�l Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager U\�QF SERC 6F9�2S AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM: Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Approving and Authorizing Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC for Services Related to the Implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (Organic Waste) and Contracting Assistance with the City's Waste Hauler SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7703: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC, dated June 10, 2024, extending the term of the Agreement through and including December 31, 2026, and approving an increase in compensation of $25,000 for a revised total contract not -to - exceed amount of $140,000; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On June 10, 2024, City Council adopted Resolution 7530, approving a Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) with HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) for consulting services for the implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (Organic Waste) and related contracting assistance with the City's existing waste hauler, Republic Services. SB 1383 was adopted to reduce the statewide disposal of organic waste, and the law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority to achieve organic disposal reduction targets. Organic waste recycling is required from every waste generator, which includes residences, businesses, and government entities. The City has made substantial progress in its negotiations with Republic Services to update the solid waste and recycling franchise agreement, which was last updated in 1997. The new amended and restated agreement will reflect organic waste provisions in compliance with SB 1383, which established methane Agenda Item F emissions reduction targets for short-lived climate -pollutants (SLCP) in various sectors of California's economy. In addition, the City continues to make progress on related SB 1383 compliance items. Staff is requesting to enter into Amendment 1 extending the term of the Agreement through and including December 31, 2026 and increasing compensation by $25,000, to support the extended timeframe of the negotiations and agreement development, as well as additional time to analyze, facilitate, and negotiate the contract. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that approval of Amendment 1 to the Agreement with HF&H will not have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and Amendment 1 and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the approved FY 2025-26 Waste Management Act account. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7703: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC, dated June 10, 2024, extending the term of the Agreement through and including December 31, 2026, and approving an increase in compensation of $25,000 for a revised total contract not -to - exceed amount of $140,000; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC on behalf of the City. Page 2 SUBMITTED BY: Iris .Gee Iris Lee, Director of Public Works NOTED AND APPROVED: PatrickGallegos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Lauren Barich, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7703 B. Amendment 1 to Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC C. Professional Services Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 3 RESOLUTION 7703 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 1383 (ORGANIC WASTE) AND RELATED CONTRACTING ASSISTANCE WITH THE CITY'S WASTE HAULER WHEREAS, on June 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 7530 approving a Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) between HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) and the City of Seal Beach (City) for consulting services for the implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (organic waste) and related contracting assistance with the City's waste hauler, Republic Services; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Agreement with HF&H pursuant to Amendment 1 to extend the term through and including December 31, 2026, and approve an increase in compensation of $25,000 for a revised cumulative not -to - exceed amount of $140,000 for the extension. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves Amendment 1 to the Agreement dated June 10, 2024, between the City of Seal Beach and HF&H Consultants, LLC, extending the Agreement's term through and including December 31, 2026 and increasing the compensation by $25,000 for a revised cumulative not -to -exceed amount of $140,000 for additional services. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute Amendment 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members r_r31FTA ilk w.rmlMI►TIran07M Lisa Landau, Mayor Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7703 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk AMENDMENT 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT for Implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (Organic Waste) and Contracting Assistance with City's Waste Hauler between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 HF&H Consultants, LLC 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, #105 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 This Amendment 1 (First Amendment) dated October 13, 2025, amends that certain agreement (Agreement) dated June 10, 2024, by and between the City of Seal Beach (City), a California charter city, and HF&H Consultants, LLC (Consultant), a California limited liability company, (collectively, "the Parties"). RECITALS A. City and Consultant are parties to an agreement entered into on June 10, 2024 (Original Agreement) for Consultant to provide professional services related to implementation of Senate Bill 1383 (Organic Waste) and contracting assistance with the City's waste hauler for a two-year term, for the not -to -exceed amount of $115,000. B. City and Consultant wish to amend the Original Agreement by this First Amendment to extend the term through December 31, 2026, and to authorize an increase in Consultant's compensation by $25,000 for the services for a revised total compensation in the not -to -exceed amount of $140,000 for the term, as provided herein. AMENDMENT 1 NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Subsections 1.1 and 1.2 of Section 1.0 (Scope of Services) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.1. Consultant's Services. In compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those professional services ("Services") set forth in the attached Exhibit A (XXXX) (Consultant's Scope of Services) and Exhibit A-1 (Consultant's Updated Proposal), which are hereby incorporated by reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibits A and A-1, this Agreement, and Amendment 1, Amendment 1 to this Agreement shall control." Section 2. Subsection 1.5 (Agreement Documents; Order of Precedence) is hereby added to Section 1.0 (Scope of Services) to read as follows: 1.5 Agreement Documents; Order of Precedence. The Agreement Documents include this Agreement and all of the following: (i) the Proposal (Exhibit A); and (ii) the Updated Scope of Services (Exhibit A-1); and (iii) Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit B) and all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit or incorporated documents, the order of precedence shall be as follows: (i) this Agreement; and then (ii) Exhibit B (Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements); and then (iii) Exhibit A (Proposal); and then (iv) Exhibit A-1 (Updated Proposal), shall control. In the event there is any conflict between the Agreement, on the one hand, and Exhibits A, A-1 and/or B, on the other hand, the Agreement shall control." Page 2 of 18 Section 3. Section 2.0 (Term) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2026, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement." Section 4. Section 3.0 (Consultant Compensation) of the Agreement is hereby amended , to read as follows: "3.0 Consultant's Compensation City will pay Consultant at the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule as set forth in Exhibit A (Proposal) and Exhibit A-1 (Updated Proposal), but in no event will the City pay more than the total not -to -exceed amount of $140,000 for all Services performed pursuant to Exhibits and A-1) for the term. Payment for any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Subsection 1.4 will need to be compensated in accordance with the fee schedules set forth in Exhibits A and A-1, and shall not exceed the amount authorized by the City Council at the time of award for the term." Section 5. Subsection 5.3 is added to Section 5.0 (Termination) to read as follows: " 5.3 Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Consultant shall cease all work under this Agreement immediately upon the effective termination date. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 24.1 of this Agreement) and all other documents, writings, and/or deliverables produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided that Consultant is not then in breach, City shall pay Consultant all undisputed amounts for any portion of the Services satisfactorily completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services, based on an amount agreed to by City and Consultant. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and Consultant shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Consultant for the full performance of the Services up to date of termination. Consultant shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages." Page 3 of 18 Section 6. Section 7.0 (Notices) is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: "7.0 Notices 7.1 All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211 -8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Consultant: HF&H Consultants, LLC. 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, #105 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attn: Laith Ezzet 7.2 Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service." Section 7. Section 17.0 (Governing Law) is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: "17.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought by reason of, that arises out of, and/or relates to any dispute under this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both)." Section 8. Section 18.0 (No Third Party Rights) is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: "18.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement." Page 4 of 18 Section 9. Section 19.0 (Waiver) is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 1119.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (i) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (ii) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (iii) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states." Section 10. Section 24.0 (Ownership of Work Product) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "24.0 Ownership of Work Product 24.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all field notes and other notes, draft and final reports, drawings, specifications, data, surveys, studies, plans, maps, models, photographs, images, ideas, concepts, designs including but not limited to website designs, source code, object code, computer files, electronic data and/or electronic files, other media of any kind whatsoever, and any other documents and written material of any kind, created, developed, prepared or used by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (collectively "Work Product") shall be considered "works made for hire," for the benefit of City. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Consultant's consent; provided that any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product by City for any purpose other than the purpose for which the Work Product was prepared or provided under this Agreement shall be at City's own risk. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any of the Work Product. 24.2. Consultant hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 24.1. Page 5 of 18 24.3. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City's use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (i) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (ii) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non -infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Consultant's covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 24.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Consultant shall deliver to City all Work Product and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Consultant prepares a document on a computer, Consultant shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. Section 11. Section 25.0 (Confidentiality) is hereby added to the reement to read as follows: "25.0 Confidentiality 25.1. Consultant may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees, trade secrets, and/or other information that may be protected under other Page 6 of 18 applicable laws relating to privacy, confidentiality and/or privilege. Consultant covenants that all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 24.1) and/or any other data, documents, writings, discussion or other information created, developed, received or provided by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement are confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such Work Product, data, documents, writings, discussion or other information to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary," provided Consultant gives City timely notice of such court order or subpoena. 25.2. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 25.3. Consultant's covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement." Section 12. Section 26.0 (Inspection and Audit of Records) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "26.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, payroll, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and Page 7 of 18 other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Upon 24 hours' notice by City, during regular business hours Consultant shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City's rights under this Section shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later." Section 13. Section 27.0 (Permits and Licenses) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "27.0 Permits and Licenses Consultant and all of Consultant's employees and other personnel shall obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, registrations, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code." Section 14. Section 28.0 (Safety Requirements) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "28.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and other applicable state and federal laws. City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Consultant when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Consultant shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Consultant shall immediately report to City any hazardous condition noted by Consultant." Section 15. Section 29.0 (Labor Certification) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: Page 8 of 18 "29.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services." Section 16. Section 30.0 (Prevailina Waae and Pavroll Records) is herebv added to the Agreement to read as follows: 30.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records To the extent that this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute "public works" as defined in the California Labor Code, Consultant shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. " Section 17. Section 31.0 (Government Code Claim Compliance) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "31.0 Government Code Claim Compliance In addition to any and all requirements of this Agreement pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for additional services, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code Section 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to additional services, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against City." Section 18. Section 32.0 (Non -Exclusive Agreement) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "32.0 Non -Exclusive Agreement Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services encompassed by or similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services Page 9 of 18 encompassed by or similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement." Section 19. Section 33.0 (Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "33.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Consultant of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Consultant for anything done, furnished or relating to Consultant's work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City's check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, agents, and servants for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, agents and servants." Section 20. Section 34.0 (Corrections) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "34.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Consultant shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City's review of Consultant's report or plans. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Consultant. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Consultant under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction." Section 21. Section 35.0 (Non -Appropriations of Funds) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "35.0 Non -Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Consultant by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Consultant's Services beyond the current Page 10 of 18 fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Consultant's Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year." Section 22. Section 36.0 (Mutual Cooperation) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "36.0 Mutual Cooperation 36.1 City's Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Consultant's proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 36.2 Consultant's Cooperation. Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's representative and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires." Section 23. Section 37.0 (Time is of the Essence) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "37.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement." Section 24. Section 38.0 (Titles and Headings) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: "38.0 Titles and Headings The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it." Section 25. All references to the term "Agreement" throughout Sections 1.0 through 38.0 inclusive, of the Agreement are hereby modified to include the Page 11 of 18 this Amendment 1, dated October 27, 2025, and all provisions hereof, as if all of those terms are fully set forth therein. Section 426. Except as expressly modified or supplemented by this Amendment 1, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. Section 427. The persons executing this Amendment 1 on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute this Amendment 1 on behalf of said Party, and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment 1. [Signatures on the following pages] Page 12 of 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Attest: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: ��- Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney CONSULTANT: HF&H Consultants, LLC By: llr,�rl Laith B. Ezzet Senior Vice President Page 13 of 18 EXHIBIT A-1 August 28, 2025 Ids Lex Director of Public Works CKY or Seal Beach 211 EV" Street Seel Beach, CA 90740 Sent via a n.90: Heed'Sej/be&dkxa.pov HF&M Consultants 590 YgnaC}o vb14y Rd. Suite 105 Walnut Creek, U 94596 Phone: (92S) 977-6950 Wet]: hfh-WnW1tants.corn Subject: 1lpdated Proposal to ProwWe On -Call Negotiation Consultant Services Doer tris, HF&M Consultants (HF&14) l4 peased to submit this updated proposal to the City o< Seal Beed+ (City) to provrde on-call nopvttat+on oonsuTtant semces. Thank you for the oppoMoslty to provide you with this updetad Stop! We look forwrerd to an opportunity to continue our partnership vi" the Cxy. If you have any puestlons, phase outact Haley Konen at (949) 251-0930 or hkunertdhfh-mns-"nts-cnm_ very truly yours. HF&M CONSULTANTS, LLC Lai L»CL, CMC Senior vice President 14 of 18 2305O8Ov3 Halls Kunest Senior Proaect Manaw [11/2019 rev.] BACKGROUND Iris Lee August 28, 2425 Page 2 of 2 This proposal Trac updated to adjust the fee proposal, after a call with City stall' (iris Lee, Public works D.recor) on YNKIIneSday, August 27, 2425. The initial proposal, dated August 5, 2025, was deve'oped after a Cali with City staff (Lauren Barkh) on Wednesday, July 23, 2425, and a follow-up discussion with City staff (Iris Lae and Lauren banCh) on Thwsday, July 31, 2025. The Intention of this proposal Is to amend the budget to Continue supporting rsegotiallans with the City's sold voste hauler, Republic Services (Republic), for a Son -ate Bill 1383 compl ante weernent and to provide on -cat! Irnpbernentatron support services. Section 1: Scope of Work TASK 1: SB 1383 CONTRACTING ASSISTANCE TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS The updated budget Is to Support the extended ti meiframe of the negotiatbo" and agreement development, as were as additional time to analyze, fadlitate, and negotiate the contract that was over acrd above the original coat proposal. The funds will ower addcwe%&l time due to CorrpiexfseS of negotiations based an programmatic assumptions for SB 1383 and recycling irw efs, additional contract tanq;,ape discussions with the City Attor»ey's Wice, analysis required to evaluate Costs and assumiptivrs used by Republic, rntelnal briefings wrh City staff, drafting additiorai contract exhibits, its, drafting the final negcttatcd ag^eernent, support for dral"ti g the Courbcd staff report, and prepasaw for and part-opetion In a City Council matting to present the crafted agreement - TASK 2: ONGOING SB 1383 IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT Upon rag -,est from City Staff, HFBH may assist wO varxm on -Call S8 1383 -related inCulntS and tasks that arise from time to time, to the extent the pro*a budget suppoft a request. These tasks wale in:lide leg Lative research, eomplkance tracking and reporting, and providing general nxyding, organics, and Soild waste Ilaison assistance as descrtmo Ln the crrginal proposal - Section 2: Fee Proposal we w-11 perform the stop4i of work based an time and rnateriais, up to the limit of Vf a available budget- we understand, basad on the can on August 27, 2425, the additional budget for the e services is 325,004. Based on our discussion with Gty staff on August 27, the addtt►oeal budget may not be sufffi[ient to complete the negotlations_ In the avert the. the aik ted budget Is exhausted prior to the cornpkdori of emWilaations, ere YAII work coltaborat oy rrlth City staff to evaluate the remaining scope and determine If a further budget adjustrnent is needed. The Initial budget was $115,000, acrd the updated total budget, mdr,rding the add•tio^.bI $25,000, would be $140,000. Hourly rates for professional and administrative personnel are billed as provided under our current prCdessoonaI services ag- ernent. 15 of 18 2305O8Ov3 [11/2019 rev.] EXHIBIT B TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute "public works" as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code ("Chapter 1"). Further, Consultant acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are "public works", Consultant shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Consultant shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Consultant and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Consultant or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant's Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. 7. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; 16 of 18 2305080v3 [11/2019 rev.] certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Consultant shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Consultant and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Consultant or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. 10. Consultant acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant hereby certifies as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Consultant shall include in the written contract between it and each 17 of 18 2305O8Ov3 [11/2019 rev.] subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Consultant's expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Consultant, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys' fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. 18 of 18 2305O8Ov3 [11/2019 rev.] PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Between City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 0 HF&H Consultants, LLC 2081 Business Center Drive, Ste 265 Irvine, CA 92512 949-251-8902 This Professional Service Agreement ("the Agreement") is made as of June 10, 2024 (the "Effective Date"), by and between HF&H Consultants, LLC ("Consultant"), a California limited liability company, and the City of Seal Beach ("City"), a California charter city, (collectively, "the Parties"). �:��Ii��IY:I�I: • • •. RECITALS A_ City desires certain professional services. B. Consultant represents that it is qualified and able to provide City with such services- NOW eryices. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. F-1110 V =1:1J,l:I:Ii1 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services ("Services") set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manger may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term This term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of 2 -year unless previously terminated as provided by this Agreement. 3.0 Consultant's Compensation City will pay Consultant in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for Services. Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Section 1.4 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2of9 4.0 Method of Payment 4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for ail services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the services were rendered and shall describe in detail the services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Consultant within 30 days of receiving Consultant's invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant. 4.2. Upon 24-hour notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City's agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant's offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. City's rights under this Section 4.2 shall survive for two years following the termination of this Agreement. 5.0 Termination 5.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, or by Consultant based on reasonable cause, upon giving the other party written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days' notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City's representative for purposes of this Ag reement. 6.2. L_aith Ezzet is the Consultant's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: 3of9 To City- City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Consultant: HF&H Consultants, LLC 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 265 Irvine, CA 92812 Attn: Laith Ezzet 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Independent Contractor 8.1. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. All services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details of performing the services. Any additional personnel performing services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 8.2. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Consultant's personnel practices. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount dine to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. 9.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. 4 of 9 10.0 Assignment Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of City. Any purported assignment without such consent shall be void and without effect. 11.0 Insurance 11.1. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. Consultant shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 11.2. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than ANIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence farm CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and, if required by the City, (3) Professional Liability. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Professional Liability: $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. 11.3. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the City to state: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, (3) coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, 5of9 employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it; (4) for general liability insurance, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, and (5) for automobile liability, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible. 11.4. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 11.5. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant guarantees that, at the option of the City, either: (1 ) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 12.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city officials (collectively "Indemnitees") free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any negligent acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, or its agents in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. With respect to any and all such aforesaid suits, actions, or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Indemnitees, Consultant shall defend Indemnitees, at Consultant's own cost, expense, and risk, and shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award, or decree that may be rendered against Indemnitees. Consultant shall reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in 6of9 enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 13.0 Equal Opportunity Consultant affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Such non-discrimination includes, but is not limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. 14.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 15.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 15.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 17.0 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 18.0 No Third Party Rights No third party shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party as a result of this Agreement. 7of9 19.0 Waiver No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other parry any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise. 20.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 20.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained. 20.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 20.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this subsection. 21.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other parry, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from 8of9 the losing party all of its attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 22.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 23.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Party and that by his or her execution, the Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT By: T bill.WIngram, R01tyManager Name: Laith Ezzet Attest *Gloria � Appr By. rvEuiw��a uru�eni, �,ILy rAuuirit,,y Its: Senior Vice President 9 of 9 F 1-I Cogs A� : 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 265 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 251-8628 Fax: (949) 251-9741 www.hfh-consultants.com April 23, 2024 Mr. Patrick Gallegos Assistant City Manager City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, California 90740 Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today Robert D. Hilton, Emeritus John W. Farnkopf, PE Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Richard J. Simonson, CMC Marva M. Sheehan', CPA Robert C. Hilton, CMC Re: Proposal to Provide Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organics Consultant Services Dear Mr. Gallegos: HF&H Consultants (HF&H) is pleased to submit this updated scope of work to the City of Seal Beach (City) to continue to provide solid waste, recycling, and organics consultant services. This scope was developed after two calls with City staff on Thursday April 4, 2024, and Wednesday April 10th, 2024. The intention of this scope is to continue negotiations with the City's solid waste hauler, Republic Services, for a Senate Bill 1383 compliant agreement, and to provide ongoing implementation support services to aid the City in achieving compliance with the State's recycling and organics recycling requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this updated scope. We look forward to an opportunity to continue our partnership with the City. If you have any questions, please contact Haley Kunert at (949) 251-0930 or hkunert@hfh-consultants.com. Very truly yours, HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC Laith Ezzet, CMC Senior Vice President Haley Kunert Senior Project Manager City of Seal Beach Scope of Work and Fee Estimate to Provide Solid Waste Consultant Services SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: SB 1383 Contracting Assistance Task 1A. Prepare for and Conduct Kick -Start Meeting with City Staff to Refocus Where Tasks Were Left in 2023 HF&H staff will prepare for and facilitate a virtual kick-off meeting with City staff to reconfirm the contracting objectives and project schedule, and confirm the approach to the contract negotiations. The result of the meeting will be a set of meeting notes and project schedule. Task 18. Develop Updated Agreement HF&H provided a draft contract for City staff review on June 19, 2023. City staff, including the City Attorney, will review the draft document, and the City will be responsible for consolidating comments from the City's various reviewers into a single "redline" of the draft work product, which we will then use to prepare an updated draft work product. Based on the discussions and direction provided by City staff described above, we will make updates to the draft franchise agreement for any new desired services and contract terms. We will update the draft agreement to reflect the negotiated terms with Republic. After the negotiations are complete, City staff will be responsible for finalizing the format of the agreement consistent with City standards and obtaining signatures, bonds, and endorsements. Task 1C: Negotiations to Confirm Services Terms and Conditions HF&H will assist in negotiating reasonable rates consistent with the terms included in the draft agreement developed in Task 1B. We will also work with City staff to guide the City through its determination of which service provider concerns are minor and which are valuable enough not to negotiate without a substantial offsetting gain for the City. HF&H will assist the City by scheduling the necessary negotiation meetings and conference calls with representatives from the City and Republic, creating meeting documents, and drafting meeting notes based on the discussions. HF&H will track resolved negotiated items in a live edits version of the draft agreement. Task 1D: Review and Analyze Proposed Rate Impacts We will request Republic to provide supporting cost and operating assumptions related to any of the requested services or contract requirements that the contractor believes may increase their costs. We will review this information for overall reasonableness based on our industry knowledge and review the contractor's supporting information to confirm the reasonableness of any requested adjustments to the current rates. Task 1E: Prepare for and Attend One CitV Council Meeting We have budgeted to attend one meeting of the City Council when the Council considers the new agreement for award. Task 2: Ongoing SB 1383 Implementation Support HF&H will assist with various SB 1383 diversion related inquiries and miscellaneous tasks that arise from time to time to the extent the project budget supports a request. These tasks will include legislative April 23, 2024 Page 2 HF&H Consultants, LLC City of Seal Beach Scope of Work and Fee Estimate to Provide Solid Waste Consultant Services research, compliance tracking and reporting, and providing general solid waste, recycling, and organics liaison assistance. For this task, HF&H may assist through one or more of the following subtasks within the budgetary limitations of the proposal: • 2A SB 1383 Contract Oversight: Upon City request, support with ongoing SB 1383 contract compliance activities under the current franchise agreement such as monitoring key services and compliance dates, reporting requirements, and specific annual SB 1383 program and educational requirements. • 2B Legislative Monitoring: Track solid waste legislation, regulations, SB 1383 resources, guidance, and funding opportunities, CalRecycle policy decisions, and other solid waste, recycling, and organics issues pertinent to the City. Provide legislative and regulatory updates and discuss significant items at virtual and/or in-person meetings. • 2C Monitor Facility and Industry Updates: Monitor local solid waste, recycling, and organics industry developments that may impact the City, such as the development of composting operations at the Orange County landfills. • 2D Implementation Record: Upon City request, review the City's Implementation Record to assess compliance and identify performance enhancement opportunities. ® 2E Environmental Preferable Purchasing Policy Support: Upon City request, review the City's current Environmentally Preferably Purchasing Policy or Financial Procurement Policy(ies) and identify compliance gaps and strategies for resolution. 2F CalGreen and MWELO Support: Upon City request, review the City's current CalGreen Construction and Demolition and Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinances (MWELO) and internal policies for SB 1383 compliance. • 2G Sel-Haul Program Updates: Upon City request, review the City's current self -haul program, assess compliance, and identify enhancement opportunities to ensure compliance with SB 1383. G 2H CalRecycle Support: Upon City request, HF&H will review and provide feedback on a final draft of the Electronic Annual Report/SB 1383 compliance report required by 14 CCR 18994.2. • 21 Other SB 1383 Activities: Other ongoing SB 1383 activities that may be identified during the course of implementation within budgetary limitations. April 23, 2024 Page 3 HF&H Consultants, LLC City of Seal Beach Scope of Work and Fee Estimate to Provide Solid Waste Consultant Services SECTION 2: FEE PROPOSAL We will perform the scope of work based on time and materials, up to the limit of the available budget. We understand, based on the call from April 10, 2024, the City's anticipated budget for these services is not to exceed $115,000, of which $65,000 is estimated for contracting assistance and $50,000 for ongoing SB 1383 implementation support. We will bill the City once per month based on the number of hours worked and expenses incurred. Payment is due within 30 days of invoicing. Hourly rates are shown below. Professional Fees Hourly rates for professional and administrative personnel through December 31, 2024, are as follows: Position Rate* Executive $320-$350 Senior Project Manager $295-$315 Project Manager/Senior Associate $215-$285 Associate Analyst $185-$200 Assistant Analyst $160-$180 Administrative Staff $125-$160 *Hourly rates adjust each January 1 by 4.0%. Direct Expenses Standard charges for common direct expenses are as follows: Automobile Travel I Prevailing IRS mileage rate Airfare and Public Transit Actual Cost Postage, overnight mail, couriers, and other out-of-pocket costs Actual cost April 23, 2024 Page 4 HF&H Consultants, LLC City of Seal Beach Scope of Work and Fee Estimate to Provide Solid Waste Consultant Services Table 1: Workplan for City of Seal Beach* " Hours may be shifted among tasks April 23, 2024 Page 5 HF&H Consultants, LLC 1. SB 1383 Contracting Assistance Task 1 Hours 40 98 78 32 246 $ 13,960 $ 28,910 $ 16,770 $ 5,280 Task 1 Fees $ 64,920 2. Ongoing SB 1383 Implementation Support Task 2 Hours 20 30 40 152 242 $ 61980 $ 81860 $ 8,600 $ 25,060 Task 2 Fees $ 49,510 Total Hours 60 128 116 184 490 ,Hourly Rate $ 349 $ 295 $ 215 $ 166 Subtotal $ 20,940 $ 37,760 $ 26,370 $ 30,360 $ 114,430 Expenses $ 670 S 115.000 Total Fees and Expenses " Hours may be shifted among tasks April 23, 2024 Page 5 HF&H Consultants, LLC U\�QF SERC 6F9�2S AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association for the Period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the Council adopt Resolution 7704: Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-04-02 for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City and the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) have completed negotiations for a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The City has met and conferred in good faith with OCEA regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. As a result of these negotiations, the City and OCEA have reached a tentative agreement and prepared a draft MOU. The MOU incorporates the agreed-upon terms and conditions. The proposed MOU covers the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028. If adopted by the City Council, the agreement provides for a cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) over the three-year term as follows: • Year One: 2.5% effective the pay period of October 26 — November 8, 2025 • Year Two: 2.5% effective the first full pay period in July 2026 • Year Three: 2.5% effective the first full pay period in July 2027 Upon adoption of the MOU, each OCEA-represented employee will receive a one- time, non -PERS -able payment of $2,000. The following additional terms and conditions of the agreement will become effective during the pay period of October 26 - November 8, 2025: Agenda Item G Deferred Compensation The City will contribute $30 per pay period for each employee into the City's deferred compensation program. Uniforms Each non -sworn employee of the Police Department required to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall receive a uniform allowance of $1,250 annually. Call -Out Pay Call -out and overtime pay shall be compensated at one and one-half (1.5) times the regular hourly rate. The minimum call -out time, when returning to work, shall be three (3) hours. Health Wellness Program The City shall reimburse employees, as a medical benefit, for actual documented expenses related to medical maintenance exams or participation in wellness programs, up to $400 per fiscal year. Reimbursement shall follow the City's standard reimbursement procedures and may include out-of-pocket expenses for annual physical examinations, medical tests, participation in weight loss, smoking cessation, or fitness programs, or membership in a health or fitness club. During the term of the MOU, the City and OCEA have also agreed to a reopener provision to meet and confer regarding the results and implementation of the City's salary study for OCEA-represented classifications. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Budget Amendment #24-04-02 in the amount of $48,530 will allocate funds for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. The breakdown of BA#24-04-02 by funding source is as follows: Description Account Revised/Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Budget (diff) Amendment Regular Salaries 101-210-0023-50020 S 696.016.00 S 735.558.00 S 39.542.00 Regular Salaries 501-500-0900-50020 S 928.486.00 S 933.879.00 S 5.393.00 Regular Salaries 503-500-0925-50020 S 797.891.00 S 801.48+6.00 S 3.595.00 In subsequent years, funds will be appropriated through the budget process. Page 2 STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt Resolution 7704: 1. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-04-02 for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. NOTED AND APPROVED: Patrick allegos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7704 B. Exhibit A — OCEA MOU — Redlines C. Exhibit B — OCEA MOU — Clean Version Page 3 RESOLUTION 7704 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (OCEA) FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 11 2025, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2028 WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach values the work of all its employees and seeks to maintain fair and mutually beneficial terms and conditions of employment for the good of the City and the employees; and, WHEREAS, representatives of the City and representatives of the bargaining group named above have met, conferred, and negotiated in good faith regarding wages, hours and working conditions. As a result of such good faith negotiation, the City and the group have developed the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"); and, WHEREAS, the MOU incorporates the agreed-upon terms and conditions. The OCEA bargaining unit has ratified the agreement. The proposed MOU covers the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028; and, WHEREAS, the ratification of the MOU includes a three-year Cost -of Living (COLA) as follows: Year one: 2.5% effective the pay period of October 26 — November 8, 2025, year two: 2.5% effective the first full pay period in July 2026, and year three: 2.5% effective the first full pay period in July 2027; and, WHEREAS, upon adoption of the MOU, each OCEA-represented employee will receive a one-time, non PERS-able payment of $2,000; and, WHEREAS, the following additional terms and conditions of the agreement will become effective during the pay period of October 26, -November 8, 2025; and, WHEREAS, the City will contribute $30 per pay period for each employee into the City's deferred compensation program; and, WHEREAS, each non -sworn employee of the Police Department required to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall receive a uniform allowance of $1,250 annually; and, WHEREAS, Call -out and overtime pay shall be compensated at one and one-half (1.5) times the regular hourly rate. The minimum call -out time, when returning to work, shall be three (3) hours; and, WHEREAS, the City shall reimburse employees, as a medical benefit, for actual documented expenses related to medical maintenance exams or participation in wellness programs, up to $400 per fiscal year. Reimbursement shall follow the City's standard reimbursement procedures and may include out-of-pocket expenses for annual physical examinations, medical tests, participation in weight loss, smoking cessation, or fitness programs, or membership in a health or fitness club; and, WHEREAS, during the term of the MOU, the City and OCEA have also agreed to a reopener provision to meet and confer regarding the results and implementation of the City's salary study of OCEA-represented classifications; and, WHEREAS, Budget Amendment #24-04-02 in the amount of $48,530 will allocate funds for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. The breakdown of BA#24-04-02 by funding source is as follows: Description Account Revised/Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Budget (diff) Amendment Re alar Salaries 101-210-0023-50020 S 696.016.00 S 735.558.00 S 39.542.00 Regular Salaries 501-500-0900-50020 S 928.486.00 S 933.879.00 S 5.393.00 Regular Salaries 503-500-0925-50020 S 797.891.00 S 801.486.00 S 3.595.00 NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The MOU between the City of Seal Beach and the Orange County Employees Association dated July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028 is hereby approved. Section 2. Budget Amendment #24-04-02 in the amount of $48,530 for the associated costs related to executing the OCEA MOU Agreement in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 is hereby approved. Section 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute the terms of the MOU, on behalf of the City, and to take the actions necessary to implement them. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on this 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7704 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Adopted by Resolution 7704 ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (OCEA) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED: MaFGh 13, 20230ctober 27, 2025 EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 20282025 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: RECOGNITION....................................................................................6 SECTION 2: DUES AND BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS A. Payroll Deductions......................................................................................7 B. Employee Association Dues.......................................................................7 C. Indemnification............................................................................................7 SECTION 3: CITY RIGHTS Rights/Responsibilities..................................................................................8-9 SECTION 4: NON-DISCRIMINATION....................................................................10 SECTION 5: COMPENSATION PLAN A. Basic Compensation Plan........................................................................10 B. Advancement within Salary Ranges........................................................10 C. Salary Increases.......................................................................................11 D. Salary Decreases.....................................................................................11 E. Adjustment of Salary Ranges...................................................................11 F. Salary and Benefits on Suspension.........................................................11 G. Salary Adjustments During Term of MOU..........................................11-12 H. Parity Agreement......................................................................................12 2 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 6: SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS A. Automobiles and Mileage.........................................................................12 B. Seniority Bonus.........................................................................................13 C. Maintenance Worker Merit Program.............................................13 D. Standby Compensation.......................................................................13-14 E. Shift Differential — Public Works...............................................................14 F. Shift Differential —Traffic Services.............................................................14 G. Traffic Signal Technician Pay..................................................................14 H. Class A/B License Pay.............................................................................14 I. Training Program..................................................................................14-15 J. Uniforms & Equipment/Uniform Allowance...............................................16 K. Water Treatment/Water Distribution Pay.................................................16 L. Recertification Reimbursement.................................................................17 M. Deferred Compensation Program............................................................17 N. Bilingual Compensation.............................................................................17 SECTION 7: FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION A. Administration...........................................................................................17 B. Selection and Funding..............................................................................17 C. Changes...................................................................................................17 D. Compensatory Time Off (CTO)................................................................17 SECTION 8: HEALTH, DENTAL, LIFE, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE A. Health Insurance.................................................................................18-19 3 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA B. Retirement Health Insurance................................................................... 19 C. Life Insurance..................................................................................... 19-20 D. Disability Insurance Plan......................................................................... 20 SECTION 9: RETIREMENT....................................................................................20 SECTION 10: HOURS OF WORK.....................................................................20-21 HolidayClosures............................................................................................21 SECTION 11: OVERTIME A. Overtime & Call -Out Pay..........................................................................22 B. Court Time...........................................................................................22-23 SECTION 12: HOLIDAYS..................................................................................23-24 SECTION 13: SICK LEAVE....................................................................................24 SECTION 14: VACATION TIME........................................................................24-26 SECTION 15: LEAVES OF ABSENCE A. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay........................................26-27 B. Bereavement Leave.................................................................................27 C. Military Leave of Absence........................................................................27 D. Pregnancy Disability Leave of Absence..................................................27 E. Family Leave.......................................................................................28-29 F. Catastrophic Leave..............................................................................28-29 4 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 16: JURY DUTY.....................................................................................29 SECTION 17: PROBATIONARY PERIODS A. Appointment Following Probation Period............................................29-30 B. Objective of Probationary Period..............................................................30 C. Employee Performance Appraisal...........................................................30 D. Rejection of Probationary Employee........................................................30 SECTION 18: LAYOFF PROCEDURES...........................................................30-31 SECTION 19: SAFETY COMMITTEE PROGRAM................................................31 SECTION 20: DRUG & SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE HOLDERS Anti -Drug & Alcohol Policy.............................................................................31 SECTION 21: ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. - C. Merger of Negotiations..................................................................31-32 D. Separability...............................................................................................32 E. Reopener Clause......................................................................................32 SECTION 22: HEALTH WELLNESS PROGRAM.........................................32 SECTION 2322: TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ................. 32 SECTION « : EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION.........................................32 SECTION 2524: RATIFICATION.............................................................................32 5 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 6 of 35 OCEA Resolution Number 7704 6 of 35 OCEA Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION SECTION 1: RECOGNITION A. Pursuant to the provisions of Employee -Employer Relations Resolution 5242, as amended, the City of Seal Beach (hereinafter called the "City" and/or "Employer" and/or "Management" interchangeably) has recognized for the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Seal Beach Chapter of the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA), an association of employees of the City of Seal Beach, hereinafter referred to as "Association" representing all full- time non -safety employees of the City except those employees determined to be professional, confidential, administrative, management and certain specified supervisory employees. B. The City recognizes the Association as the representative of the employees in the classification and assignments set forth in Section 1 above for the purpose of meeting its obligations under this MOU, the Meyer-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code Section 3500 et seq., when City rules, regulations or laws affecting wages, hours and/or other terms and conditions of employment are amended or changed. C. The City agrees that the recognized representatives of Association not to exceed 4 in number shall be entitled to meet and confer with City during said recognized representatives' normal working hours without suffering any loss in pay while absent from the duties for such purpose, providing that such time shall not exceed 2 hours in any 1 week unless agreed to by City. City also agrees that such representatives may utilize not more than 1 hour per month or 12 hours per year without suffering any loss in pay for such absence for the purpose of meeting with employees who are members of Association and/or other officers of Association. D. The City shall provide a bulletin board in each of the following locations: Public Works Yard, Administration Building, and Police Department. Such bulletin boards to be available for the purpose of posting notices pertaining to Association business only. Association shall not use any other bulletin board within City facilities. E. The City recognizes Association's right to appoint or elect representatives to meet and confer with City's management representatives on salaries, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. Association agrees to notify City in writing as to the identity of the representatives and of subsequent appointments, if any. Association and City agree that employees appointed or elected as Association representatives shall be required to work full time. 7 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA F. It is recognized and agreed that no Association business and/or meetings will be conducted and/or attended by employees of City during their respective hours of duty and work unless specified herein. G. Representatives and/or officers of Association shall not interrupt the work of any employee of City at any time to conduct business or other matters connected with Association without prior consent of Management. H. During the term of this MOU, the City shall provide to the Association, upon receipt of a written request, a listing of all current employees in this unit, consistent with the requirements of applicable law. Such listing shall include employee name and job classification. I. This MOU shall be effective by and between Management and Association upon execution by Management and the required number of the duly authorized recognized representatives of Association. SECTION 2: DUES AND BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS A. Payroll Deductions - The City shall not be required to make payroll deductions for any other items or reasons except as specified in this MOU. Management shall determine in the interest of cost and efficiency as to whether said deductions shall be on a monthly basis or on each bi-weekly payroll. Management may require notice from employee of any change or modification in any payroll deduction authorized in this section of this MOU. Said notice may be required at least 10 days prior to the effective date of said requested modification or change. Management agrees that payroll deductions are authorized for purposes of any employee depositing funds or making payments directly to a credit union providing that any deduction shall not be less than $5.00 on a monthly basis, or $2.50 if bi-weekly deductions for such purpose as authorized by Management. B. Employee Association Dues - City agrees to deduct regular monthly Association dues from salary or wages of any Association member when authorized to do so by said City employee in writing in a form satisfactory to City and to remit such deductions to Association within 15 days after making such deduction from an employee's salary or wages, and within the terms of the signed deduction authorization of such City employee. The deduction of such Association dues and the remittance of same by City to Association shall constitute payment of said dues of such employee and member of Association. C. Indemnification - The Association agrees to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City against any claims, causes of actions, or lawsuits arising out of the deductions or transmittal of such funds to the Association, except the intentional failure of the City to transmit to the Association monies deducted from the employees pursuant to this Section. 8 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx SECTION 3: CITY RIGHTS OCEA A. Rights/Responsibilities - This City reserves, retains and is vested with solely and exclusively, all rights of management which have not been expressly abridged by specific provisions of this MOU or by law to manage the City, as such rights existed prior to the execution of this MOU. The sole and exclusive rights of management, as they are not abridged by this Agreement or by law, shall include but not be limited to, the following rights: To manage the City generally and to determine the issues of policy. 2. To determine the existence or nonexistence of facts which are the basis of the management decisions. 3. To determine the necessity and organization of any service or activity conducted by the City and expand or diminish services. 4. To determine the nature, manner, means and technology and extent of services to be provided to the public. 5. To determine methods of financing. 6. To determine types of equipment or technology to be used. 7. To determine and/or change the facilities, methods, technology, means, organizational structure and size and composition of the work force and allocate and assign work by which the City operations are to be conducted. 8. To determine and change the number of locations, relocations, and types of operations, processes and materials to be used in carrying out all City functions including, but not limited to, the right to contract for or subcontract any work or operation of the City. 9. To assign work to and schedule employees in accordance with any requirements set forth in this MOU, and to establish and change work schedules and assignments upon reasonable notice. 10. To layoff employees from duties because of lack of work or funds, or under conditions where continued work would be ineffective or non-productive. 11. To establish and modify productivity and performance programs and standards. 12. To discharge, suspend, demote, reprimand, withhold salary increases and benefits, or otherwise discipline employees for cause. 9 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 13. To determine minimum qualifications, skills, abilities, knowledge, selection procedures and standards, job classifications and to reclassify employees in accordance with this MOU and applicable resolution and codes of the City. 14. To hire, transfer, promote and demote employees for non -disciplinary reasons in accordance with the MOU and applicable resolutions and codes of the City. 15. To determine policies, procedures and standards for selection, training and promotion of employees in accordance with this MOU and applicable resolutions and codes of the City. 16. To establish reasonable employee performance standards including but not limited to, quality and quantity standards and to require compliance therewith. 17. To maintain order and efficiency in its facilities and operation. 18. To establish and promulgate and/or modify rules and regulations to maintain order and safety and which are not in contravention with the Agreement. 19. To restrict the activity of an employee organization on municipal property and on municipal time except as set forth in this MOU. 20. To take any and all necessary action to carry out the mission of the City in emergencies. B. Where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law, whenever the contemplated exercise of City Rights shall impact the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding the impact of the contemplated exercise of such rights prior to exercising such rights, unless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this MOU. SECTION 4: NON-DISCRIMINATION A. The City and the Association agree that they shall not discriminate against any employee because of race, color, sex, age, national origin, physical handicap, marital status, political or religious opinions or affiliations or sexual orientation. The City and the Association shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of the Federal or State agency or Court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU in compliance with State or Federal anti -discrimination laws. 10 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 5: COMPENSATION PLAN A. Basic Compensation Plan 1. All employees covered by this MOU shall be included under the Basic Compensation Plan. Every classification under this Plan shall be assigned a salary range adopted by the City Council. The salary schedule shall consist of 5 steps within each range. 2. The 1st step is a minimum rate and is normally the hiring rate for the classification. An employee may be assigned, upon appointment, to other than the normal entering salary step within the assigned range upon the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager when it is decided that such action is in the best interests of the City. 3. The 2nd step, B step, is a merit adjustment which may be given at the end of the probationary period subject to the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. 4. The 3rd, 4th and 5th steps are merit adjustments to encourage an employee to improve his work and to recognize increased skill on the job. Employees are normally eligible for these adjustments at any time after the completion of 1 year of service at the preceding step. Each adjustment shall be made subject to the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. B. Advancement within Salary Ranges 1. In order to properly compensate an employee, advancement in salary shall be based on merit. 2. Advancement in salary shall not be automatic, but shall depend upon increased service value of the employee to the City. 3. The Department Head and/or the employee's immediate supervisor shall be responsible to evaluate an employee fairly in an unbiased fashion for the determination of job performance. Advancement shall be made only upon recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. 4. An employee should be reviewed at least once every 12 months from the effective date of his last performance evaluation, special performance advancement or promotion. Nothing contained herein shall restrict the Department Head from denying the increase after evaluation, nor shall it prevent him from recommending special performance advancement in salary at any time when unusual or outstanding achievement has been demonstrated. 11 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x C. Salary Increases OCEA 1. Promotional Appointment - When an employee is promoted to a position with a higher salary range, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the salary range assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a 5% salary increase over the base salary received immediately prior to promotion. 2. Temporary Appointment - City agrees that employees assigned, in an acting capacity, to a higher classification than the employees' present classification for a period of not less than 80 consecutive working hours shall be entitled to temporary appointment pay. In addition, employees who are assigned by the department director in writing to regularly scheduled acting assignments of less than 80 hours shall also be entitled to temporary appointment pay. Temporary appointment pay will be retroactive to the 1 st hour served in the higher classification and shall be paid at a rate equal to the first step of the higher classification but in no event shall temporary appointment pay be less than 5% more of the employee's current rate. D. Salary Decreases - In the case of a demotion of an employee to a classification with a lower maximum salary, such employee shall be assigned to the appropriate salary step in the new classification as recommended by the Department Head with the approval of the City Manager. The employee shall retain his previous anniversary date. E. Adjustments of Salary Ranges - When a salary range for a given classification is revised upward or downward, the incumbents of positions and classifications affected shall have their existing salary adjusted to the same step in the new salary range and their anniversary date shall not be changed. F. Salary and Benefits on Suspension - During suspension from the City service for disciplinary cause, an employee shall forfeit all rights, privileges and salary, except he shall not forfeit his medical health plans, including dental, retirement plan, disability insurance or life insurance. Should such suspension be later modified or revoked, the employee shall be entitled to receive payment for loss of income and benefits during the period of suspension. G. Salary Adjustments During Term of Memorandum Of Understanding 1. The salary schedule for each position classification affected is hereby determined and established upon adoption by City Council. Salary increases are as follows: Upon adoption by City Council - Employees shall receive a 2.5% cost of living adjustment effective the pay period beginning October 26, 2025 re+rear-lie +„ the first full pay 12 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA First pay period on or following July 1, 20262023 — Employees shall receive a 2.5%2% cost of living adjustment. First pay period on or following July 1, 20274 — Employees shall receive a 2.5%2-% cost of living adjustment. OCEA Classifications Grade Job Classifications 8 Community Services Officer 8 Maintenance Worker 8 Recreation Specialist 12 Senior Community Services Officer 12 Senior Maintenance Worker 12 Water Operator 15 Police Recruit 16 Senior Water Operator 18 Police Civilian Investigator 19 Electrician 2. If the Management representative is of the sole opinion that recruitment, retention or other reasons necessitate other upward salary adjustments, Management representative will meet and confer with Association on position classifications specified by the Management representative or Association. Management representative may make additional recommendations to the City Council. 3. For any and all position classifications not listed in this section, said classifications not having personnel employed by City, salary adjustment, if any, may be recommended by Management without further consultation or approval of Association. H. Parity Agreement — During the term of this agreement, if one or more bargaining units receives salary adjustments greater than those afforded to OCEA, the City agrees to provide additional salary adjustments to OCEA represented classifications as applicable. SECTION 6: SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS A. Automobiles and Mileage - Employees covered by this MOU, utilizing their privately -owned automobiles for City business on a non -regular basis, shall be entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred at the rate established by the Internal 13 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 Revenue Service (IRS). OCEA B. Seniority Bonus - Employees who have achieved ten years of uninterrupted employment with the City shall receive a 5% increase in base salary effective on the payroll period following the 10th anniversary of their employment. C. Maintenance Worker Merit Program — Under the provisions of this program, all Maintenance Worker employees will become eligible to "promote" to the classification of Senior Maintenance Worker providing the following conditions have been met: The employee must have reached "E" step in the classification of Maintenance Worker. 2. The employee must have served in the capacity of Maintenance Worker "E" step for a minimum period of twelve months. 3. Employee must have been rated satisfactory on most recent performance evaluation. Any vacancies in the Maintenance Worker or Senior Maintenance Worker work force will be recruited at the Maintenance Worker level. D. Standby Compensation 1. Public Works Maintenance/Water Division- Each employee - who is assigned to standby duty will be compensated for 2 hours at a rate of time and one-half for each weekday of duty and 5 hours at a rate of time and one-half for standby duty on Saturday or Sunday or holidays. The assignment to standby duty will be rotated among all department personnel. 2. No compensation will be provided to additional personnel serving as "backup" to the regularly scheduled Maintenance or Water person assigned to standby duty. 3. Employees on standby duty who are called out will be compensated in accordance with Section 11. 4. Employees assigned to standby duty are required to respond to all emergencies on a 24 hour basis. 5. An employee assigned to standby duty and regularly assigned to Public Works — Maintenance shall respond to calls for emergencies within City limits not related to the water system. The employee on standby for Water shall act as back up personnel only for such Maintenance emergencies. 14 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA 6. An employee assigned to standby and regularly assigned to the Water department shall respond to calls for emergencies related to the City's water system. The employee on standby for Public Works — Maintenance shall act as backup personnel only for such Water emergencies. 7. Personnel assigned to standby duty are required to carry with them or have nearby, a portable communication device during all non -regular working hours and also must confine their activities to the extent that they remain within 20 minutes driving time of the City of Seal Beach at all times. In addition, standby personnel will be required to have in their possession a current roster listing each employee in the Public Works Department with their telephone number. E. Shift Differential — Public Works - City agrees that employees in the Public Works Department who are assigned duties between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. shall be paid at a rate of time and one-half for time worked during that period. F. Shift Differential — Traffic Services — City agrees that employees assigned to Traffic Services in the Police Department who perform parking enforcement duties for 4 or more hours between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. shall receive a shift differential of $100 per pay period. G. Traffic Siqnal Technician Pa v - Each employee in the Public Works Department in the classification of Electrician who has a Level 2 Traffic Signal Technician Certificate from the International Municipal Signal Association will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. H. Class A/B License Pay - Each full-time employee in the Public Works Department required by the City to maintain a Class A or B license for the performance of their work, will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. The Public Works Director or his designee will notify Personnel Office of eligible employees. Training Programs 1. Required Training - An employee who is required by his or her Department Head to attend a specified off-duty training course, shall, upon submission of receipts, receive reimbursement for the following: transportation cost where appropriate, cost of books, course registration and related expenses directly necessary for the successful completion of the course. If required training is necessary beyond the normal workday, workweek or work period, the employee shall be entitled to pay computed at the regular base hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under the MOU, or compensatory time off subject to budget limitations, departmental rules and regulations, and Section 7-D of this MOU. 15 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA 2. Desirable Training - Desirable training is defined as an off-duty instruction that will be mutually and immediately beneficial to the employee and the City. Prior to enrolling in a class for desirable training, an employee wishing reimbursement for his or her expenses shall obtain the approval of the City Manager as to course content and its relationship to the employee's employment with the City as well as the recommendation of the Department Head. This approval is at the sole discretion of the City Manager. In the event the City Manager approves such request and the employee has received a grade of "C" or better or its equivalent grade point upon completion of the course, the employee shall submit a copy of the official transcript and a receipt for the tuition fee to the Personnel Office. Upon approval by the City Manager, the employee shall then be reimbursed for the cost of tuition and books in accordance with the tuition reimbursement policy adopted by the City. Employee shall not be entitled to either compensated overtime or compensatory time off for participating in desirable training or off-duty instruction. 3. Employees attending accredited community colleges, universities, and trade schools for the purpose of obtaining a higher education degree may apply for reimbursement of tuition, books, student fees and parking. Reimbursement is capped each calendar year at the tuition rate of the Cal State University system for up to 2 semesters of full-time, undergraduate enrollment each calendar year. 4. Reimbursement is contingent upon the successful completion of the course. Successful completion means a grade of "C" or better for undergraduate courses and a grade of "B" or better for graduate courses. All claims for tuition reimbursement require prior approval and are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. Example: Employee A attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2023 semester and completes 2 (3 -unit) undergraduate courses with a grade of "C" or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 2022/2023 State University Tuition $1,665.00 (0-6 units) Required University Fees $ 546.00 (approx.) Parking $ 250.00 Books $ 300.00 (approx.) TOTAL $2,767.00 5. Training Conferences and Seminars - Approval for employees attending conferences and seminars is at the sole discretion of the Department Head and the City Manager. Prior to enrolling in a seminar or conference, an employee wishing reimbursement for his or her expenses shall obtain the approval of the Department Head and the City Manager. Once approvals are given, those 16 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA employees will be reimbursed for allowable expenses per City Policy #300-10. J. Uniforms & Equipment/Uniform Allowance 1. Public Works Department Employees - Each employee of the Department of Public Works, except clerical, engineering and related classifications as determined by the City Manager, shall be entitled to uniform service. The City shall pay the total cost of renting and laundering uniforms (designated by the Department Head) for each eligible employee. For Classic Members, up to $10.00 per pay period will be reportable to CalPERS. 2. Police Department Employees (Non -Sworn Members) - Each non - sworn employee of the Police Department assigned to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall be entitled to a uniform allowance of $1,250 annually, surra-ef-$40 per payroll peried.In addition, new employees of non -sworn status in the Police Department shall receive initial uniforms as determined by the Chief of Police. Each non -sworn employee of the Police Department NOT required to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall not receive a uniform allowance. Should conditions of employment change and those classifications are required to wear a uniform, the $1,250 annual uniform allowance shall be reinstated. 3. Safety Shoes- City agrees to provide acceptable safety shoes at a maximum of $250 per calendar year for authorized employees as designated by their Department Head. Any remaining funds from the allotted safety shoe allowance may be used to purchase shoe related items (shoe inserts, socks, shoelaces). City recommends employees purchase OSHA certified footwear. 4. Safety Shoes — Public Works — Public Works employees may purchase an additional pair of safety shoes and/or shoe related items of up to $250 each calendar year with prior written approval from the Public Works Director. K. Water Treatment/Water Distribution/Backflow Prevention Pay — Each Public Works Employee in the classification of Senior Water Operator or Water Operator who has received a Grade II Water Treatment Operator Certificate from the California Department of Health Services or Grade II Water Distribution Operator Certificate from the American Water Works Association will be entitled to receive a one-time $100.00. Each Public Works Employee in the classification of Senior Water Operator or Water Operator who has received a Grade III Water Treatment Operator Certificate from the California Department of Health Services or Grade III Water Distribution 17 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA Operator Certificate from the American Water Works Association will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. Each Public Works employee required to hold a backflow prevention device tester certificate will be entitled to a one-time $100.00. L. Recertification Reimbursement - City to reimburse employees for required water re -certification. M. Deferred Compensation Program - The City shall contribute $3041% e# base salar per pay period into a tax -qualified deferred compensation program-fer eligible o pleyees N. Bilingual Compensation 1. Upon the recommendation of a department director, the City Manager may award a bilingual compensation bonus of $52.50 per payroll period to those employees in positions determined to require bilingual skills. 2. The City Manager shall require the taking of competency tests to certify the employee as eligible for bilingual compensation based on employee's proficiency in speaking the language determined to be required. Such certification shall be a condition precedent to qualifying for bilingual pay. SECTION 7: FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION A. Administration - The City reserves the right to select, change, administer or fund any fringe benefit programs involving insurance that now exists or may exist in the future during the term of this MOU. B. Selection and Funding - In the administration of fringe benefit programs involving insurance, the City shall have the right to select any insurance carrier or other method providing coverage to fund the benefits provided hereinafter during the term of this MOU. C. Changes - The City shall notify the Association prior to any change of insurance carrier or method of funding coverage for any fringe benefits provided hereinafter during the term of this MOU. No changes in insurance carrier or methods of funding coverage shall result in the reduction of any benefits to any employee covered by this agreement, irrespective of the carrier or plan in effect from time to time. Within the term of this agreement, the City may provide alternative health plans. D. Compensatory Time Off (CTO) - The maximum (cap) for banked CTO is 160 hours. CTO earned in excess of 160 hours will be paid as overtime during the 18 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 pay period accrued. OCEA SECTION 8: HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE: LIFE & DISABILITY INSLJRANCF A. Health Insurance Coverage 1. The City shall contribute to the cost of medical coverage for each eligible employee and his/her dependents, an amount not to exceed the California Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum contribution. For calendar year 2023, CalPERS has established the minimum PEMHCA contribution at $ 151 per month per employee. 2. The City shall contribute an equal amount towards the cost of medical coverage under PEMHCA for both active eligible employees and eligible retirees. 3. The City shall implement a full flex cafeteria plan for eligible employees in accordance with the criteria provided to the Association during negotiations. For employees participating in the City's cafeteria plan, each employee shall receive a monthly flex dollar allowance to be used for the purchase of benefits under the cafeteria plan. Beginning on or after January 1, 20262-023, the monthly flex dollar amount shall be: For Employees only $ 1,399.06 L644,)53-5-2/month For Employee and 1 dependent $ 2,161.99,-62 o4/month For Employee and 2 or more dependents $ 2,795.89'-05- 7/month 4. A portion of the monthly flex dollar allowance is identified as the City's contribution towards PEMHCA. Thus, for example, in calendar 20253, an employee's monthly flex dollar allowance is $ 1,399.0695382. Of that amount, $1584 has been designated by the City as its required PEMHCA contribution to CalPERS. The monthly flex dollar allowance may only be used in accordance with the terms of the full flex cafeteria plan. 5. —Every January 1St during the term of this agreement, the City shall increase the contribution amounts above by the percentage of increase for basic plans published by CalPERS which sets health insurance premiums for the coverage year. 19 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 6. Employees meeting the waiver criteria and electing to waive enrollment in the City's cafeteria plan are eligible to receive $350 per month beginning January 1, 2025 (upon showing proof of medical insurance coverage under an alternative plan). Election forms are available in Human Resources. 7. Full-time employees covered by this MOU who have completed 30 days of uninterrupted service shall be enrolled in the full flex cafeteria plan on the first day of the next succeeding month. 8. Employees who change classification from full-time to part-time provisional, hourly or seasonal shall not be eligible for participation in the full flex cafeteria plan. 9. City shall not contribute a dollar amount for any employee during any month the employee is on leave of absence without pay or who is absent from regular duties without authorization, for a full calendar month. City shall contribute to the cafeteria plan for eligible employees receiving temporary payments from Workers' Compensation Insurance. B. Retirement Health Insurance 1. Employees covered by this Agreement shall have the option, upon retirement, to continue participation in the City's health insurance program at the employee's expense. 2. Employees covered by this Agreement who were hired before April 13, 2009 by the City, have 20 or more combined years of employment with the City, have reached 55 years of age, and retire after December 31, 2010, shall be provided with individual medical insurance coverage capped at the rate of Kaiser HMO. If said employee has 30 or more combined years of employment with the City upon retirement, eligible dependent medical insurance coverage shall also be provided capped at the rate of Kaiser HMO which is in effect at the time of retirement. A portion of the payment for retiree or retiree and dependents medical insurance is identified as the City's contribution towards PEMHCA3. Employees hired by the City on or after April 13, 2009 and retire after December 31, 2010, the City shall contribute to the cost of medical coverage for each eligible retiree and dependents, an amount not to exceed the California Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum contribution. 4. In all cases, the City's contribution for eligible dependent coverage for retirees shall terminate with the death of the retiree. 5. In the event an eligible retired employee resides in an area where the health plans provided by the City are not in effect, that retired employee shall be entitled to receive in cash each month an amount equal to the City flex contribution at time of retirement. 20 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx C. Life Insurance OCEA 1. Management agrees to provide a group term life insurance plan providing life insurance coverage of $50,000 for each full-time classified non -safety employee represented by the Association, a double indemnity accidental death benefit, and a dependent death benefit in the amount of $1,000 per dependent. 2. Said insurance shall become effective after the employee has completed 30 days of uninterrupted service with said employee to be enrolled in the program on the first day of the next succeeding month. D. Disability Insurance Plan 1. The City shall provide a group insurance plan for income continuation for eligible employees. Said insurance to provide an income continuation of 66.67% of the employee's monthly salary, up to a maximum of $5,000 per month, for a period of time not to exceed the length of injury or illness, up to the age of retirement as designated by the Social Security Administration. 2. Said insurance shall become effective after the employee has completed 30 days of uninterrupted service with said employee to be enrolled in the program on the first day of the next succeeding month. SECTION 9: RETIREMENT A. The retirement program provided by the City shall consist of a pooled Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS) plan, which includes the following Government Code provisions: Section 20042 - One Year final compensation (Single Highest Year) Section 20965 - Credit for unused sick leave Section 21024 - Military Service Credit Section 21573 — 3rd Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits Section 21251.32 — 2% @ 55 B. The employees shall pay the full 7% of their CalPERS required contribution of their compensation earnable. C. New employees/members hired on or after January 1, 2013 as defined by The Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) will be hired at the retirement formula in accordance with PEPRA and other legislation. SECTION 10: HOURS OF WORK 21 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA A. Prior to implementing a change in work schedule for the Public Works Department from the 4 day schedule, Orange County Employees Association will be notified. Upon request, the City will meet and confer with the Association on the impact of any scheduled change. B. At the discretion of the Department Head: Community Services Officer and Senior Community Services Officer positions may be scheduled in shifts of 9 -hour 4 days each week and one additional 8 hour day on alternate weeks, referred to as the 9/80 plan, or may be scheduled in shifts of 10 -hour 4 days each week, referred to as the 4/10 plan. Additionally, other non -sworn positions may be scheduled on the 5/8 plan to accommodate training sessions. At the discretion of the Department Head, Public Works Beach Division employees may be scheduled on a 5/8 work shift from May through September. C. Holiday Closures 1. The City Manager may designate up to 5 specific holiday closure work days in each calendar year between Christmas Day and New Year's Day during which employees may be required to take time off, charged to leave without pay, the employee's accumulated compensatory time, vacation, floating holidays, or a combination thereof, as determined by the affected employee. The days must be consecutive for the employee, but may differ between employees. Employees who do not have sufficient accumulated time off in their account to cover the required time off may request, and will be granted, sufficient advance on their vacation accrual to cover the uncovered balance. This advance will be recovered with the next vacation accruals earned by the employee. Time off of work under this provision shall not be deemed a layoff. 2. If an employee is required to work on a City Manager designated holiday closure work day, the employee will receive pay computed at time and one- half employees' basic hourly rate for the number of hours actually worked. Example: Employee A normally works a 10 -hour day, 4 days per week, and is required to work 4 hours on a City Manager designated holiday closure work day on December 28, 2016. Employee A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 4 hours work pay Regular base hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU 6 hours leave time Compensatory time, vacation, floating holiday, or combination thereof 3. All General Unit Orange County Employees Association members shall be granted '/2 hour paid release time to attend quarterly Association meetings and 2 additional '/2 hour for meetings to be called at the discretion of the 22 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA Association. Such release time shall be taken in conjunction with the employees regularly scheduled lunch and shall be approved only after a minimum of 10 days' notice has been given to the City. 5. Police Department Employees are excluded from Section 10C. SECTION 11: OVERTIME A. Overtime and Call -Out Pa 1. If work beyond normal workday, workweek or work period is required, the employee who may be asked to perform such overtime shall be notified of the apparent need for such overtime as soon as practicable prior to when the overtime is expected to begin. 2. If the responsible supervisor determines that overtime is necessary on work started on an assigned shift, the assigned employee(s) may continue with that work as an extension of their assigned shift. 3. Call out and overtime pay shall be paid at the rate of time and one- half the hourly rate. Minimum "call out" time (when returning to work) shall be 3 hours. 4. Overtime will be computed by dividing the employee's regular monthly salary by 173.3 to arrive at an hourly wage, and the hourly wage is then multiplied by 1.5 times the actual overtime worked to determine the overtime pay. Paid overtime for the payroll period is to be submitted and computed with the regular payroll. 5. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, employee shall be entitled to select either compensated overtime or compensatory time off subject to budget limitations, departmental rules and regulations, and Section 7 - D of this MOU. B. Count Time 1. All eligible employees called for a subpoenaed court appearance which arises out of the course of employment and not contiguous with the employee's work shift shall be compensated for a minimum of 2% hours at the rate of 1'/2 times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Should the appearance exceed 2% hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual appearance time, excluded court designated lunch period, at the rate of 1'/2 times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Court appearance time shall begin when the employee 23 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x departs from the Police Station to go directly to court. OCEA 2. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the 2% minimum. 3. All employees agree to comply with "on-call" policies administered by their department. Should an eligible employee be placed "on-call" during off duty hours for court appearance(s), he shall be granted 2 hours pay at the employee's straight time hourly rate for any on call time prior to 12:00 noon and 2 hours for all on call time after the hour of 12:00 noon. SECTION 12: HOLIDAYS A. The City agrees to grant all full time employees a full shift pay for each holiday recognized by City. Every full-time employee of the City shall be granted the following holidays with pay: Holid I Date New Year's Day January 1St Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4th Labor Day First Monday in September Veteran's Day November 11th Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November Calendar day following Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve December 24th Christmas Day December 25th "Floating Holidays (2) (discretion of employee) Total of 134 holidays annually Commented Iasi]: Correcting previous error *Floating Holidays must be taken during each fiscal year (July 1st through June 30th). Floating holidays must be approved in advance by the Department Head. B. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the next day shall be observed as a holiday. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. C. When a holiday falls on a full-time employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee shall receive compensatory time off for a full shift in lieu of holiday 24 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA pay, in keeping with other provisions of this MOU. Example #1: Employee A normally works a 9/80 schedule, and a holiday falls on the employee's Friday off, Employee A would receive 8 hours of compensatory time off. Example #2: Employee B normally works a 9/80 schedule, and a holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, Employee B would receive 9 hours of compensatory time off. Example #3: Employee C normally works a 4/10 schedule, and a holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, Employee C would receive 10 hours of compensatory time off. D. An employee who is required to work on a holiday shall receive pay computed at 1'/2 times the employees' basic hourly rate for the number of hours actually worked. Example: Employee A works 6 hours on Christmas Day. Employee A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate Full -shift holiday pay base hourly rate 6 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU E. Holidays which fall during an employee's leave time shall not be charged against the employee's leave time balance. SECTION 13: SICK LEAVE A. All full-time employees covered by this MOU shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 1 day (8 hour) per month of service. Sick leave may be accumulated up to and including 520 hours. Except as otherwise provided in this MOU, no employee shall receive further accruals once the 520 hour maximum is reached. B. The Department Head may require employees to present proof of illness for sick leaves in excess of 3 working days. C. Except as otherwise provided, employees shall not be eligible for any payment for sick leave balances upon termination. D. Employees who are on leaves of absence, without pay, shall not accrue 25 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x sick leave hours during said leaves of absence. E. Sick leave balances may not be used to defer a disability retirement. SECTION 14: VACATION TIME OCEA A. All full-time employees covered by this MOU, who have passed the employee probationary period (as defined in the Personnel Rules and Regulations, Section 6.01) shall be granted a vacation with pay of approximately 80 hours per year up to a maximum of approximately 160 hours per year. B. All full-time employees, who shall have at least 5 years of continuous service, shall be entitled to 8 additional hours of vacation per year of full-time continuous service for each year of service in excess of 5 years up to a maximum of approximately 160 hours per year. C. The vacation accrual schedule is as follows: Years' Service Vacation Hours Earned Maximum Hourly Accrual Rate / Pay Period Bi -Weekly Annual Vacation Hours Maximum Vacation Accrual 1 80 3.0769 80 160 2 80 3.0769 80 160 3 80 3.0769 80 160 4 80 3.0769 80 160 5 80 3.0769 80 160 6 88 3.3846 88 200 7 96 3.6923 96 200 8 104 4.0000 104 200 9 112 4.3076 112 200 10 120 4.6153 120 200 11 128 4.9230 128 240 12 136 5.2307 136 240 13 144 5.5384 144 240 14 152 5.8461 152 240 15 160 6.1538 160 240 D. Employees of the City considered as hourly, part-time and/or seasonal employees shall not be eligible for paid vacation. E. Employees who are on leaves of absence, without pay, shall not accrue vacation leave hours during said leaves of absence. 26 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA F. All full-time employees shall only be allowed to accrue a maximum of 240 hours of vacation as set forth above. Once this maximum is reached, all further accruals will cease. Vacation accruals will recommence after the employee has taken vacation and the employee's accrued hours drop below the maximum. The maximum can only be exceeded with the approval of the City Manager in writing. G. An employee who makes a reasonable request (2 weeks prior) for time off and is denied, causing the employee to meet or exceed the accrual limit in the pay period for which time off is requested shall be provided the ability to cash out up to 40 hours of accrued vacation time. H. Employees are encouraged to use at least the amount of vacation hours earned each fiscal year. Those employees who have been credited with pre- existing leave hours are expected to use a portion of the excess as leave time, in addition to the new vacation hours each year, until the maximum accrual is met. The City recognizes that a number of long-term employees have accrued substantially more leave time than shorter -term employees, and that it will likely take them significantly longer to achieve this goal. It is the intent of this section to balance the personal interests of the employee with the financial concerns of the City; as such, significant progress toward reaching the maximum accrual amounts may be deemed a success. I. Vacation leave time shall not be approved until such time as it has been earned, unless prior, special arrangements have been made with the City Manager. The time at which an employee shall take vacation leave shall be requested by the employee prior to the start of the vacation leave period. Such vacation leave to be taken shall be subject to the prior approval of the Department Head, or designee, subsequent to consideration of the departmental workload and other staffing considerations, such as but not limited to, the previously approved vacation schedule of other employees, sick leave and position vacancies. J. An employee who has completed at least 1 year of continuous service shall, upon request, receive compensation for up to 80 hours of accrued vacation time provided that at least 80 hours remain in the employee's vacation bank. Employees may elect two 40 hour cash outs or a single 80 hour cash out. M *4411 01 Z I NIIIIIIIIIIIIA=is\F/ X+301y_1 4=1`►[li y A. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pa 1. Upon the Department Head's recommendation and approval of the City Manager, an employee may be granted a leave of absence without pay in cases of an emergency or where such absence would not be contrary to the best interest of the City, for a period not to exceed 180 working days. 27 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA 2. Upon written request of the employee, the City Council may grant a leave of absence, with or without pay, for a period not to exceed 1 year. 3. At the expiration of the approved leave, after notice to return to duty, the employee shall be reinstated to the position held at the time leave was granted. Failure on the part of the employee to report promptly at such leave's expiration and receipt of notice to return to duty shall be cause for discharge. 4. During any authorized leave of absence without pay, an employee shall not be eligible to accumulate or receive fringe benefits, except an employee shall receive their monthly flex dollar allowance and the City, as specifically provided for in this MOU, shall contribute to the employee's disability insurance plan, and life insurance plan for the first 30 days of leave of absence. B. Bereavement Leave - The City agrees to provide 40 hours bereavement leave with pay for death in the immediate family. The bereavement leave shall not be chargeable to or accumulated as sick time. "Immediate family" is defined as spouse, registered domestic partner, father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, step -mother, step -father, mother-in-law, father-in-law, registered domestic partner -in-law or dependent relative living with the employee. C. Military Leave of Absence 1. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of Federal and State law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the Department Head an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken. Whenever possible, the employee involved shall notify the Department Head of such leave request 10 working days in advance of the beginning of the leave. 2. In addition to the provisions of State law, the City shall continue to provide eligible employees on military leave, the monthly flex dollar allowance under the cafeteria plan and disability and life insurance and retirement (if applicable) for the first 3 months of military leave. During said period, the employee shall be required to pay to the City the amount that exceeds the monthly flex dollar allowance (if applicable). 3. After the first 3 months of military leave, the employee may continue said benefits at his cost. D. Pregnancy Disability Leave of Absence 1. An employee who is disabled due to pregnancy shall be granted a pregnancy disability leave as provided by the State of California and the Federal Family Medical Leave Act. The employee may elect to take a lesser period of leave. 28 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA 2. Disabilities arising out of pregnancy shall be treated the same as other temporary disabilities in terms of eligibility for, or entitlement to, leave with or without pay. E. Family Leave - Upon a demonstration of need and subject to the following conditions, an employee may take leave or unpaid leave to care for his newborn infant, whether through parentage or adoption, or to care for a seriously ill or injured member of the employees "immediate family" as defined in Section 15 - B. 1. Proof of the birth or adoption of a newborn infant or the serious illness/injury of the family member must be submitted to the City. 2. Requests for family leave must be submitted in writing to the employee's supervisor at the earliest possible date proceeding the time when the leave is to begin. 3. Operational needs of the City shall be relevant in determinations regarding the granting of family leave in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. 4. In the event of an extended family leave, the employee may be required to periodically report on the status of the situation giving rise to the leave. 5. Family leave may be granted only upon the recommendation of the Department Head and approval of the City Manager consistent with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. F. Catastrophic Leave - The purpose of the Catastrophic Leave Pool is to enable full time employees to receive and donate vacation, administrative leave, and CTO leave credits on an hour for hour basis to assist employees who have no leave and who will suffer a financial hardship due to prolonged illness or injury to themselves or a member of their immediate family. Sick Leave is excluded from this program. The following conditions shall apply to Catastrophic Leave: 1. Catastrophic Leave will be available only to employees who have exhausted their own paid leave through bona fide serious illness or accident. 2. The leave pool shall be administered by the Finance Department. 3. Employees must be in regular full-time appointed positions to be eligible to receive catastrophic leave. 4. Employees receiving Long -Term Disability payments are excluded from receiving catastrophic leave under this program. 29 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA 5. All donations are to be confidential, between the donating employee and the Finance Department. 6. Employees donating to the pool must have 40 hours of paid leave available after making a donation. 7. Donating employees must sign an authorization, including specifying the specific employee to be the recipient of the donation. 8. Donations will be subject to applicable tax laws. 9. The availability of Catastrophic Leave shall not delay or prevent the City from taking action to medically separate or disability retire an employee. 10. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of an immediate family member may require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician's Statement that the presence of the employee is necessary. 11. Catastrophic Leave due to the illness or injury of the employee will require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician's Statement as to the employee's condition. SECTION 16: JURY DUTY COMPENSATION A. Employees required to report for jury duty shall be granted leaves of absence for such purpose, upon presentation of jury notice to the Department Head. Said employees shall receive full payment for the time served on jury service, provided the employee remits any fees received for such jury service, excluding payment for mileage, to the City's Finance Department. Compensation for mileage, subsistence or similar auxiliary allowance shall not be considered as a fee and shall be returned to the employee by the Finance Department. B. If the sum of the employee's jury duty responsibilities is less than a full work day, the employee shall contact his supervisor as to the feasibility of returning to work that day. C. Any hours worked beyond the regularly scheduled work day shall be subject to the workweek and overtime provisions. An employee may request a change in regularly scheduled working hours to a Monday through Friday day shift for the duration of such jury duty. Such requests shall be granted if practicable. SECTION 17: PROBATIONARY PERIODS A. Appointment Following Probation Period 30 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA 1. The original appointment and promotional appointment of employees shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of 6 months of service. 2. When unusual circumstances merit the extension of the probationary period, the Department Head shall request, in writing, approval of the City Manager. Said extension shall not exceed 180 days. The Personnel Office shall notify the Department Head and the probationer concerned no -less -than 2 weeks prior to the termination of any probationary period. 3. If the service of a probationary employee has been satisfactory, the Department Head shall file with the Personnel Office a statement, in writing, that the retention of the employee is desired. No actions changing an employee's status from probationary to regular full-time shall be made or become effective until approved by the City Manager. B. Objective of Probationary Period - The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new employee to his position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the required standards of work. C. Employee Performance Appraisal 1. Each probationary employee shall have his performance evaluated at the end of six (6) ImonthseaGhl 3—months of service or at a more frequent interval commented tAEzt: corrected to reflect city when deemed necessary by the Department Head. Such evaluation shall be practices reported in writing and in the form approved by the Personnel Office. 2. The written appraisal report of an employee's performance evaluation shall be filed in the Personnel Office and made a part of the employee's personnel records, with one copy to be given to the employee. D. Resection of Probationary Employee 1. During the probationary period an employee may be suspended, demoted, or rejected anytime by the Department Head, with approval of the City Manager, without cause and without right of appeal, except the right of appeal of punitive action as may be provided by law. Notification of rejection, in writing, shall be served on the probationary employee and a copy filed with the Personnel Office. A termination interview may be conducted with each rejected probationer. 2. An exception will be applied where the probationary employee's job termination or dismissal is based on charges of misconduct which stigmatizes his reputation or seriously impairs his opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously damage his standing and association in the community. Where there is such a deprivation of a "liberty interest", the employee shall be given pre - 31 of 35 Resolution Number 7704x OCEA disciplinary procedural due process as defined in the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations and this MOU. Prior to the disciplinary action becoming final, the employee must be notified of his right to the appeal procedure as outlined in the Rules and Regulations. SECTION 18: LAYOFF PROCEDURES A. The appointing authority may lay off employees or demote employees in lieu of layoff subject to Section II - TERMINATION of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. B. Notwithstanding Section II of the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations, the City agrees to apply the following as part of the definition of seniority in layoffs. C. Whenever seniority is equal, the seniority of the employee shall be determined first by examining continuous service within the affected classification and if not determinative, then by position on the employment list. SECTION 19: SAFETY COMMITTEE PROGRAM A Citywide Safety Committee Program will be implemented; an employee representing each department will participate and will meet on a quarterly basis. SECTION 20: DRUG & SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE HOLDERS Anti-Drua & Alcohol Polic A. Employees of the City of Seal Beach who are required to possess a commercial driver's license - Class A or B - to operate a City vehicle in the scope of their employment, or employees who perform safety sensitive functions will be subject to controlled substance and alcohol testing rules in accordance with Federal Regulations 49CFR, Parts 382, 391, 392 and 395. B. This policy reflects the City's compliance with the applicable Federal laws in conjunction with a commitment to provide a safe environment for its employees and the public alike. Only covered employee positions and covered employees performing safety sensitive functions are expected to comply with this policy. By implementing this policy, the goal is to ensure a drug and alcohol -free transportation environment and to reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities. SECTION 21: ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. Mercier of Negotiations - This MOU represents the full and complete 32 of 35 Resolution Number 7704xx OCEA understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and previous Memorandums of Understanding of whatsoever kind of nature are merged herein. B. Notwithstanding the provision of Sub -section A, there exists within the City certain personnel rules and regulations and department rules and regulations. To the extent that this MOU does not specifically contradict these personnel rules and regulations or department rules and regulations or City ordinances, they shall continue subject to being changed by the City in accordance with the exercise of City rights under this MOU and applicable state law. C. Except as provided herein, other terms and conditions of employment, oral or written, express or implied that are presently enjoyed by employees represented by the Association shall remain in full force and effect during the entire term of this MOU unless mutually agreed to the contrary by both parties hereto. D. Separability - If any provision of the MOU or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of the MOU or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. E. Reopener Clause - City and Association agree to reconvene during the terms of this MOU to discuss the results and implementation of the City's salary study of OCEA represented classifications. retiree beRefits RGIuding h„+ no+ limited to the i plomonta+inn of Health Savings AGGGunt (HAS), I Health Reimbursement ArrapgemeRt (HRA), OF �ele�+apy—=mployee Be;eficiaryTAsseca+,iop /V€BA\ programs for ompleyee and retiree mgrlinal n SECTION 22: HEALTH WELLNESS PROGRAM The City shall reimburse Employee, as a medical benefit, for Emplovee's actual documented expenses for medical maintenance exams or the cost of participation in wellness programs, in an amount not to exceed $400 per fiscal year. Reimbursement shall be subject to participation in wellness programs, and will follow the City's normal reimbursement processes and requirements for such expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall include but not be limited to, actual out of pocket expenses for annual physical examinations or other medical tests or examinations, participation in weight loss, stop smoking, fitness or other similar proarams. or membership in a health or fitness club. SECTION 232-2: TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in full force and effect from July 1, 20252022 until midnight, June 30, 20282825. 33 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 2423: EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION In the event of circumstances beyond the control of the City, such as acts of God, fire, flood, civil disorder, national emergency, or similar circumstances, provisions of this MOU or the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City, which prevent the City's ability to respond to these emergencies, shall be suspended for the duration of such emergency. After the emergency is over, the Association shall have the right to meet and confer with the City regarding the impact on employees of the suspension of these provisions in the MOU and any Personnel Rules and Regulations. SECTION 2524: RATIFICATION This MOU is subject to approval and adoption by the City Council and ratification by the required number of the duly authorized representatives of the Association. Following such approval and adoption, the MOU shall be implemented by the appropriate resolutions(s), ordinance(s), or other written action of the City Council. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have hereto caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be executed this 27th 43t�' day of October 2025Mao F c _=o�n�� CITY OF SEAL BEACH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES: Date: Barbara Arenado, Director of Financeoa+ Assistant Gity Manager Date: Patrick Gallegos 41 aim, City Manager ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: 34 of 35 Resolution Number 7704 Date: Redar'^Alisha Greene, OCEA Sevier Labor Relations Representative `��^^c^ Dominic Sarabia Aine Eisenhauer Matthey" PrintyDerrick Fitzgerald Garrett Rowan 35 of 35 Date: Date: Date: OCEA Adopted by Resolution 7704 EXHIBIT B ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (OCEA) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ADOPTED: October 27, 2025 EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 2028 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: RECOGNITION....................................................................................6 SECTION 2: DUES AND BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS A. Payroll Deductions......................................................................................7 B. Employee Association Dues.......................................................................7 C. Indemnification............................................................................................7 SECTION 3: CITY RIGHTS Rights/Responsibilities..................................................................................8-9 SECTION 4: NON-DISCRIMINATION....................................................................10 SECTION 5: COMPENSATION PLAN A. Basic Compensation Plan........................................................................10 B. Advancement within Salary Ranges........................................................10 C. Salary Increases.......................................................................................11 D. Salary Decreases.....................................................................................11 E. Adjustment of Salary Ranges...................................................................11 F. Salary and Benefits on Suspension.........................................................11 G. Salary Adjustments During Term of MOU..........................................11-12 H. Parity Agreement......................................................................................12 2of33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 6: SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS A. Automobiles and Mileage.........................................................................12 B. Seniority Bonus.........................................................................................13 C. Maintenance Worker Merit Program.............................................13 D. Standby Compensation.......................................................................13-14 E. Shift Differential — Public Works...............................................................14 F. Shift Differential — Traffic Services.............................................................14 G. Traffic Signal Technician Pay..................................................................14 H. Class A/B License Pay.............................................................................14 I. Training Program..................................................................................14-15 J. Uniforms & Equipment/Uniform Allowance...............................................16 K. Water Treatment/Water Distribution Pay.................................................16 L. Recertification Reimbursement.................................................................17 M. Deferred Compensation Program............................................................17 N. Bilingual Compensation.............................................................................17 SECTION 7: FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION A. Administration...........................................................................................17 B. Selection and Funding..............................................................................17 C. Changes...................................................................................................17 D. Compensatory Time Off (CTO)................................................................17 SECTION 8: HEALTH, DENTAL, LIFE, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE A. Health Insurance.................................................................................18-19 3 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA B. Retirement Health Insurance................................................................... 19 C. Life Insurance..................................................................................... 19-20 D. Disability Insurance Plan......................................................................... 20 SECTION 9: RETIREMENT....................................................................................20 SECTION 10: HOURS OF WORK.....................................................................20-21 HolidayClosures............................................................................................21 SECTION 11: OVERTIME A. Overtime & Call -Out Pay..........................................................................22 B. Court Time...........................................................................................22-23 SECTION 12: HOLIDAYS..................................................................................23-24 SECTION 13: SICK LEAVE....................................................................................24 SECTION 14: VACATION TIME........................................................................24-26 SECTION 15: LEAVES OF ABSENCE A. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay........................................26-27 B. Bereavement Leave.................................................................................27 C. Military Leave of Absence........................................................................27 D. Pregnancy Disability Leave of Absence..................................................27 E. Family Leave.......................................................................................28-29 F. Catastrophic Leave..............................................................................28-29 4 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 16: JURY DUTY.....................................................................................29 SECTION 17: PROBATIONARY PERIODS A. Appointment Following Probation Period............................................29-30 B. Objective of Probationary Period..............................................................30 C. Employee Performance Appraisal...........................................................30 D. Rejection of Probationary Employee........................................................30 SECTION 18: LAYOFF PROCEDURES...........................................................30-31 SECTION 19: SAFETY COMMITTEE PROGRAM................................................31 SECTION 20: DRUG & SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE HOLDERS Anti -Drug & Alcohol Policy.............................................................................31 SECTION 21: ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. - C. Merger of Negotiations..................................................................31-32 D. Separability...............................................................................................32 E. Reopener Clause......................................................................................32 SECTION 22: HEALTH WELLNESS PROGRAM.........................................32 SECTION 23: TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING .....................32 SECTION 24: EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION.............................................32 SECTION 25: RATIFICATION.................................................................................32 5 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION SECTION 1: RECOGNITION A. Pursuant to the provisions of Employee -Employer Relations Resolution 5242, as amended, the City of Seal Beach (hereinafter called the "City" and/or "Employer" and/or "Management" interchangeably) has recognized for the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Seal Beach Chapter of the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA), an association of employees of the City of Seal Beach, hereinafter referred to as "Association" representing all full- time non -safety employees of the City except those employees determined to be professional, confidential, administrative, management and certain specified supervisory employees. B. The City recognizes the Association as the representative of the employees in the classification and assignments set forth in Section 1 above for the purpose of meeting its obligations under this MOU, the Meyer-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code Section 3500 et seq., when City rules, regulations or laws affecting wages, hours and/or other terms and conditions of employment are amended or changed. C. The City agrees that the recognized representatives of Association not to exceed 4 in number shall be entitled to meet and confer with City during said recognized representatives' normal working hours without suffering any loss in pay while absent from the duties for such purpose, providing that such time shall not exceed 2 hours in any 1 week unless agreed to by City. City also agrees that such representatives may utilize not more than 1 hour per month or 12 hours per year without suffering any loss in pay for such absence for the purpose of meeting with employees who are members of Association and/or other officers of Association. D. The City shall provide a bulletin board in each of the following locations: Public Works Yard, Administration Building, and Police Department. Such bulletin boards to be available for the purpose of posting notices pertaining to Association business only. Association shall not use any other bulletin board within City facilities. E. The City recognizes Association's right to appoint or elect representatives to meet and confer with City's management representatives on salaries, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. Association agrees to notify City in writing as to the identity of the representatives and of subsequent appointments, if any. Association and City agree that employees appointed or elected as Association representatives shall be required to work full time. 6of33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA F. It is recognized and agreed that no Association business and/or meetings will be conducted and/or attended by employees of City during their respective hours of duty and work unless specified herein. G. Representatives and/or officers of Association shall not interrupt the work of any employee of City at any time to conduct business or other matters connected with Association without prior consent of Management. H. During the term of this MOU, the City shall provide to the Association, upon receipt of a written request, a listing of all current employees in this unit, consistent with the requirements of applicable law. Such listing shall include employee name and job classification. I. This MOU shall be effective by and between Management and Association upon execution by Management and the required number of the duly authorized recognized representatives of Association. SECTION 2: DUES AND BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS A. Payroll Deductions - The City shall not be required to make payroll deductions for any other items or reasons except as specified in this MOU. Management shall determine in the interest of cost and efficiency as to whether said deductions shall be on a monthly basis or on each bi-weekly payroll. Management may require notice from employee of any change or modification in any payroll deduction authorized in this section of this MOU. Said notice may be required at least 10 days prior to the effective date of said requested modification or change. Management agrees that payroll deductions are authorized for purposes of any employee depositing funds or making payments directly to a credit union providing that any deduction shall not be less than $5.00 on a monthly basis, or $2.50 if bi-weekly deductions for such purpose as authorized by Management. B. Employee Association Dues - City agrees to deduct regular monthly Association dues from salary or wages of any Association member when authorized to do so by said City employee in writing in a form satisfactory to City and to remit such deductions to Association within 15 days after making such deduction from an employee's salary or wages, and within the terms of the signed deduction authorization of such City employee. The deduction of such Association dues and the remittance of same by City to Association shall constitute payment of said dues of such employee and member of Association. C. Indemnification - The Association agrees to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City against any claims, causes of actions, or lawsuits arising out of the deductions or transmittal of such funds to the Association, except the intentional failure of the City to transmit to the Association monies deducted from the employees pursuant to this Section. 7 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 SECTION 3: CITY RIGHTS OCEA A. Rights/Responsibilities - This City reserves, retains and is vested with solely and exclusively, all rights of management which have not been expressly abridged by specific provisions of this MOU or by law to manage the City, as such rights existed prior to the execution of this MOU. The sole and exclusive rights of management, as they are not abridged by this Agreement or by law, shall include but not be limited to, the following rights: 1. To manage the City generally and to determine the issues of policy. 2. To determine the existence or nonexistence of facts which are the basis of the management decisions. 3. To determine the necessity and organization of any service or activity conducted by the City and expand or diminish services. 4. To determine the nature, manner, means and technology and extent of services to be provided to the public. 5. To determine methods of financing. 6. To determine types of equipment or technology to be used. 7. To determine and/or change the facilities, methods, technology, means, organizational structure and size and composition of the work force and allocate and assign work by which the City operations are to be conducted. 8. To determine and change the number of locations, relocations, and types of operations, processes and materials to be used in carrying out all City functions including, but not limited to, the right to contract for or subcontract any work or operation of the City. 9. To assign work to and schedule employees in accordance with any requirements set forth in this MOU, and to establish and change work schedules and assignments upon reasonable notice. 10. To layoff employees from duties because of lack of work or funds, or under conditions where continued work would be ineffective or non-productive. 11. To establish and modify productivity and performance programs and standards. 12. To discharge, suspend, demote, reprimand, withhold salary increases and benefits, or otherwise discipline employees for cause. 13999.]3 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 13. To determine minimum qualifications, skills, abilities, knowledge, selection procedures and standards, job classifications and to reclassify employees in accordance with this MOU and applicable resolution and codes of the City. 14. To hire, transfer, promote and demote employees for non -disciplinary reasons in accordance with the MOU and applicable resolutions and codes of the City. 15. To determine policies, procedures and standards for selection, training and promotion of employees in accordance with this MOU and applicable resolutions and codes of the City. 16. To establish reasonable employee performance standards including but not limited to, quality and quantity standards and to require compliance therewith. 17. To maintain order and efficiency in its facilities and operation. 18. To establish and promulgate and/or modify rules and regulations to maintain order and safety and which are not in contravention with the Agreement. 19. To restrict the activity of an employee organization on municipal property and on municipal time except as set forth in this MOU. 20. To take any and all necessary action to carry out the mission of the City in emergencies. B. Where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law, whenever the contemplated exercise of City Rights shall impact the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding the impact of the contemplated exercise of such rights prior to exercising such rights, unless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this MOU. SECTION 4: NON-DISCRIMINATION A. The City and the Association agree that they shall not discriminate against any employee because of race, color, sex, age, national origin, physical handicap, marital status, political or religious opinions or affiliations or sexual orientation. The City and the Association shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of the Federal or State agency or Court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU in compliance with State or Federal anti -discrimination laws. 9of33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 5: COMPENSATION PLAN A. Basic Compensation Plan 1. All employees covered by this MOU shall be included under the Basic Compensation Plan. Every classification under this Plan shall be assigned a salary range adopted by the City Council. The salary schedule shall consist of 5 steps within each range. 2. The 1st step is a minimum rate and is normally the hiring rate for the classification. An employee may be assigned, upon appointment, to other than the normal entering salary step within the assigned range upon the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager when it is decided that such action is in the best interests of the City. 3. The 2nd step, B step, is a merit adjustment which may be given at the end of the probationary period subject to the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. 4. The 3rd, 4th and 5th steps are merit adjustments to encourage an employee to improve his work and to recognize increased skill on the job. Employees are normally eligible for these adjustments at any time after the completion of 1 year of service at the preceding step. Each adjustment shall be made subject to the recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. B. Advancement within Salary Ranges 1. In order to properly compensate an employee, advancement in salary shall be based on merit. 2. Advancement in salary shall not be automatic, but shall depend upon increased service value of the employee to the City. 3. The Department Head and/or the employee's immediate supervisor shall be responsible to evaluate an employee fairly in an unbiased fashion for the determination of job performance. Advancement shall be made only upon recommendation of the Department Head and with the approval of the City Manager. 4. An employee should be reviewed at least once every 12 months from the effective date of his last performance evaluation, special performance advancement or promotion. Nothing contained herein shall restrict the Department Head from denying the increase after evaluation, nor shall it prevent him from recommending special performance advancement in salary at any time when unusual or outstanding achievement has been demonstrated. ` Gon9991 Resolution Number 7704 C. Salary Increases OCEA 1. Promotional Appointment - When an employee is promoted to a position with a higher salary range, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the salary range assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a 5% salary increase over the base salary received immediately prior to promotion. 2. Temporary Appointment - City agrees that employees assigned, in an acting capacity, to a higher classification than the employees' present classification for a period of not less than 80 consecutive working hours shall be entitled to temporary appointment pay. In addition, employees who are assigned by the department director in writing to regularly scheduled acting assignments of less than 80 hours shall also be entitled to temporary appointment pay. Temporary appointment pay will be retroactive to the 1 st hour served in the higher classification and shall be paid at a rate equal to the first step of the higher classification but in no event shall temporary appointment pay be less than 5% more of the employee's current rate. D. Salary Decreases - In the case of a demotion of an employee to a classification with a lower maximum salary, such employee shall be assigned to the appropriate salary step in the new classification as recommended by the Department Head with the approval of the City Manager. The employee shall retain his previous anniversary date. E. Adjustments of Salary Ranges - When a salary range for a given classification is revised upward or downward, the incumbents of positions and classifications affected shall have their existing salary adjusted to the same step in the new salary range and their anniversary date shall not be changed. F. Salary and Benefits on Suspension - During suspension from the City service for disciplinary cause, an employee shall forfeit all rights, privileges and salary, except he shall not forfeit his medical health plans, including dental, retirement plan, disability insurance or life insurance. Should such suspension be later modified or revoked, the employee shall be entitled to receive payment for loss of income and benefits during the period of suspension. G. Salary Adjustments During Term of Memorandum Of Understanding 1. The salary schedule for each position classification affected is hereby determined and established upon adoption by City Council. Salary increases are as follows: Upon adoption by City Council - Employees shall receive a 2.5% cost of living adjustment effective the pay period beginning October 26, 2025 11 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 First pay period on or following July 1, 2026 — Employees shall receive a 2.5% cost of living adjustment. First pay period on or following July 1, 2027 — Employees shall receive a 2.5% cost of living adjustment. OCEA Classifications Grade Job Classifications 8 Community Services Officer 8 Maintenance Worker 8 Recreation Specialist 12 Senior Community Services Officer 12 Senior Maintenance Worker 12 Water Operator 15 Police Recruit 16 Senior Water Operator 18 Police Civilian Investigator 19 Electrician OCEA 2. If the Management representative is of the sole opinion that recruitment, retention or other reasons necessitate other upward salary adjustments, Management representative will meet and confer with Association on position classifications specified by the Management representative or Association. Management representative may make additional recommendations to the City Council. 3. For any and all position classifications not listed in this section, said classifications not having personnel employed by City, salary adjustment, if any, may be recommended by Management without further consultation or approval of Association. H. Parity Agreement — During the term of this agreement, if one or more bargaining units receives salary adjustments greater than those afforded to OCEA, the City agrees to provide additional salary adjustments to OCEA represented classifications as applicable. SECTION 6: SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS A. Automobiles and Mileage - Employees covered by this MOU, utilizing their privately -owned automobiles for City business on a non -regular basis, shall be entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred at the rate established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 12 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA B. Seniority Bonus - Employees who have achieved ten years of uninterrupted employment with the City shall receive a 5% increase in base salary effective on the payroll period following the 10th anniversary of their employment. C. Maintenance Worker Merit Program — Under the provisions of this program, all Maintenance Worker employees will become eligible to "promote" to the classification of Senior Maintenance Worker providing the following conditions have been met: 1. The employee must have reached "E" step in the classification of Maintenance Worker. 2. The employee must have served in the capacity of Maintenance Worker "E" step for a minimum period of twelve months. 3. Employee must have been rated satisfactory on most recent performance evaluation. Any vacancies in the Maintenance Worker or Senior Maintenance Worker work force will be recruited at the Maintenance Worker level. D. Standby Compensation 1. Public Works Maintenance/Water Division- Each employee - who is assigned to standby duty will be compensated for 2 hours at a rate of time and one-half for each weekday of duty and 5 hours at a rate of time and one-half for standby duty on Saturday or Sunday or holidays. The assignment to standby duty will be rotated among all department personnel. 2. No compensation will be provided to additional personnel serving as "backup" to the regularly scheduled Maintenance or Water person assigned to standby duty. 3. Employees on standby duty who are called out will be compensated in accordance with Section 11. 4. Employees assigned to standby duty are required to respond to all emergencies on a 24 hour basis. 5. An employee assigned to standby duty and regularly assigned to Public Works — Maintenance shall respond to calls for emergencies within City limits not related to the water system. The employee on standby for Water shall act as back up personnel only for such Maintenance emergencies. 13 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 6. An employee assigned to standby and regularly assigned to the Water department shall respond to calls for emergencies related to the City's water system. The employee on standby for Public Works — Maintenance shall act as backup personnel only for such Water emergencies. 7. Personnel assigned to standby duty are required to carry with them or have nearby, a portable communication device during all non -regular working hours and also must confine their activities to the extent that they remain within 20 minutes driving time of the City of Seal Beach at all times. In addition, standby personnel will be required to have in their possession a current roster listing each employee in the Public Works Department with their telephone number. E. Shift Differential — Public Works - City agrees that employees in the Public Works Department who are assigned duties between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. shall be paid at a rate of time and one-half for time worked during that period. F. Shift Differential — Traffic Services — City agrees that employees assigned to Traffic Services in the Police Department who perform parking enforcement duties for 4 or more hours between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. shall receive a shift differential of $100 per pay period. G. Traffic Signal Technician Pay - Each employee in the Public Works Department in the classification of Electrician who has a Level 2 Traffic Signal Technician Certificate from the International Municipal Signal Association will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. H. Class A/B License Pay - Each full-time employee in the Public Works Department required by the City to maintain a Class A or B license for the performance of their work, will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. The Public Works Director or his designee will notify Personnel Office of eligible employees. Training Programs 1. Required Training - An employee who is required by his or her Department Head to attend a specified off-duty training course, shall, upon submission of receipts, receive reimbursement for the following: transportation cost where appropriate, cost of books, course registration and related expenses directly necessary for the successful completion of the course. If required training is necessary beyond the normal workday, workweek or work period, the employee shall be entitled to pay computed at the regular base hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under the MOU, or compensatory time off subject to budget limitations, departmental rules and regulations, and Section 7-D of this MOU. Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 2. Desirable Training - Desirable training is defined as an off-duty instruction that will be mutually and immediately beneficial to the employee and the City. Prior to enrolling in a class for desirable training, an employee wishing reimbursement for his or her expenses shall obtain the approval of the City Manager as to course content and its relationship to the employee's employment with the City as well as the recommendation of the Department Head. This approval is at the sole discretion of the City Manager. In the event the City Manager approves such request and the employee has received a grade of "C" or better or its equivalent grade point upon completion of the course, the employee shall submit a copy of the official transcript and a receipt for the tuition fee to the Personnel Office. Upon approval by the City Manager, the employee shall then be reimbursed for the cost of tuition and books in accordance with the tuition reimbursement policy adopted by the City. Employee shall not be entitled to either compensated overtime or compensatory time off for participating in desirable training or off-duty instruction. 3. Employees attending accredited community colleges, universities, and trade schools for the purpose of obtaining a higher education degree may apply for reimbursement of tuition, books, student fees and parking. Reimbursement is capped each calendar year at the tuition rate of the Cal State University system for up to 2 semesters of full-time, undergraduate enrollment each calendar year. 4. Reimbursement is contingent upon the successful completion of the course. Successful completion means a grade of "C" or better for undergraduate courses and a grade of "B" or better for graduate courses. All claims for tuition reimbursement require prior approval and are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. Example: Employee A attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2023 semester and completes 2 (3 -unit) undergraduate courses with a grade of "C" or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 2022/2023 State University Tuition $1,665.00 (0-6 units) Required University Fees $ 546.00 (approx.) Parking $ 250.00 Books $ 300.00 (approx.) TOTAL $2,767.00 5. Training Conferences and Seminars - Approval for employees attending conferences and seminars is at the sole discretion of the Department Head and the City Manager. Prior to enrolling in a seminar or conference, an employee wishing reimbursement for his or her expenses shall obtain the approval of the Department Head and the City Manager. Once approvals are given, those employees will be reimbursed for allowable expenses per City Policy #300-10. 15 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA J. Uniforms & Equipment/Uniform Allowance 1. Public Works Department Employees - Each employee of the Department of Public Works, except clerical, engineering and related classifications as determined by the City Manager, shall be entitled to uniform service. The City shall pay the total cost of renting and laundering uniforms (designated by the Department Head) for each eligible employee. For Classic Members, up to $10.00 per pay period will be reportable to CalPERS. 2. Police Department Employees (Non -Sworn Members) - Each non - sworn employee of the Police Department assigned to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall be entitled to a uniform allowance of $1,250 annually. In addition, new employees of non -sworn status in the Police Department shall receive initial uniforms as determined by the Chief of Police. Each non -sworn employee of the Police Department NOT required to wear a uniform as a condition of employment shall not receive a uniform allowance. Should conditions of employment change and those classifications are required to wear a uniform, the $1,250 annual uniform allowance shall be reinstated. 3. Safety Shoes- City agrees to provide acceptable safety shoes at a maximum of $250 per calendar year for authorized employees as designated by their Department Head. Any remaining funds from the allotted safety shoe allowance may be used to purchase shoe related items (shoe inserts, socks, shoelaces). City recommends employees purchase OSHA certified footwear. 4. Safety Shoes — Public Works — Public Works employees may purchase an additional pair of safety shoes and/or shoe related items of up to $250 each calendar year with prior written approval from the Public Works Director. K. Water Treatment/Water Distribution/Backflow Prevention Pay — Each Public Works Employee in the classification of Senior Water Operator or Water Operator who has received a Grade II Water Treatment Operator Certificate from the California Department of Health Services or Grade II Water Distribution Operator Certificate from the American Water Works Association will be entitled to receive a one-time $100.00. Each Public Works Employee in the classification of Senior Water Operator or Water Operator who has received a Grade III Water Treatment Operator Certificate from the California Department of Health Services or Grade III Water Distribution Operator Certificate from the American Water Works Association will be entitled to receive $30 per payroll period. Each Public Works employee required to hold a backflow prevention device tester certificate will be entitled to a one-time $100.00. Iii mes 9991 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA L. Recertification Reimbursement - City to reimburse employees for required water re -certification. M. Deferred Compensation Program - The City shall contribute $30 per pay period into a tax -qualified deferred compensation program. N. Bilingual Compensation 1. Upon the recommendation of a department director, the City Manager may award a bilingual compensation bonus of $52.50 per payroll period to those employees in positions determined to require bilingual skills. 2. The City Manager shall require the taking of competency tests to certify the employee as eligible for bilingual compensation based on employee's proficiency in speaking the language determined to be required. Such certification shall be a condition precedent to qualifying for bilingual pay. SECTION 7: FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION A. Administration - The City reserves the right to select, change, administer or fund any fringe benefit programs involving insurance that now exists or may exist in the future during the term of this MOU. B. Selection and Funding - In the administration of fringe benefit programs involving insurance, the City shall have the right to select any insurance carrier or other method providing coverage to fund the benefits provided hereinafter during the term of this MOU. C. Changes - The City shall notify the Association prior to any change of insurance carrier or method of funding coverage for any fringe benefits provided hereinafter during the term of this MOU. No changes in insurance carrier or methods of funding coverage shall result in the reduction of any benefits to any employee covered by this agreement, irrespective of the carrier or plan in effect from time to time. Within the term of this agreement, the City may provide alternative health plans. D. Compensatory Time Off (CTO) - The maximum (cap) for banked CTO is 160 hours. CTO earned in excess of 160 hours will be paid as overtime during the pay period accrued. 17 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 8: HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE: LIFE & DISABILITY INSURANCE A. Health Insurance Coverage 1. The City shall contribute to the cost of medical coverage for each eligible employee and his/her dependents, an amount not to exceed the California Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum contribution. For calendar year 2023, CalPERS has established the minimum PEMHCA contribution at $ 151 per month per employee. 2. The City shall contribute an equal amount towards the cost of medical coverage under PEMHCA for both active eligible employees and eligible retirees. 3. The City shall implement a full flex cafeteria plan for eligible employees in accordance with the criteria provided to the Association during negotiations. For employees participating in the City's cafeteria plan, each employee shall receive a monthly flex dollar allowance to be used for the purchase of benefits under the cafeteria plan. Beginning on or after January 1, 2026, the monthly flex dollar amount shall be: For Employees only $ 1,399.06/month For Employee and 1 dependent $ 2,161.99/month For Employee and 2 or more dependents $ 2,795.89/month 4. A portion of the monthly flex dollar allowance is identified as the City's contribution towards PEMHCA. Thus, for example, in calendar 2025, an employee's monthly flex dollar allowance is $ 1,399.06. Of that amount, $158 has been designated by the City as its required PEMHCA contribution to CalPERS. The monthly flex dollar allowance may only be used in accordance with the terms of the full flex cafeteria plan. 5. Every January 1St during the term of this agreement, the City shall increase the contribution amounts above by the percentage of increase for basic plans published by CalPERS which sets health insurance premiums for the coverage year. 6. Employees meeting the waiver criteria and electing to waive enrollment in the City's cafeteria plan are eligible to receive $350 per month beginning January 1, 2025 (upon showing proof of medical insurance coverage under an alternative plan). Election forms are available in Human Resources. 7. Full-time employees covered by this MOU who have completed 30 days of uninterrupted service shall be enrolled in the full flex cafeteria plan on the first day of the next succeeding month. 18 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 8. Employees who change classification from full-time to part-time provisional, hourly or seasonal shall not be eligible for participation in the full flex cafeteria plan. 9. City shall not contribute a dollar amount for any employee during any month the employee is on leave of absence without pay or who is absent from regular duties without authorization, for a full calendar month. City shall contribute to the cafeteria plan for eligible employees receiving temporary payments from Workers' Compensation Insurance. B. Retirement Health Insurance 1. Employees covered by this Agreement shall have the option, upon retirement, to continue participation in the City's health insurance program at the employee's expense. 2. Employees covered by this Agreement who were hired before April 13, 2009 by the City, have 20 or more combined years of employment with the City, have reached 55 years of age, and retire after December 31, 2010, shall be provided with individual medical insurance coverage capped at the rate of Kaiser HMO. If said employee has 30 or more combined years of employment with the City upon retirement, eligible dependent medical insurance coverage shall also be provided capped at the rate of Kaiser HMO which is in effect at the time of retirement. A portion of the payment for retiree or retiree and dependents medical insurance is identified as the City's contribution towards PEMHCA3. Employees hired by the City on or after April 13, 2009 and retire after December 31, 2010, the City shall contribute to the cost of medical coverage for each eligible retiree and dependents, an amount not to exceed the California Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum contribution. 4. In all cases, the City's contribution for eligible dependent coverage for retirees shall terminate with the death of the retiree. 5. In the event an eligible retired employee resides in an area where the health plans provided by the City are not in effect, that retired employee shall be entitled to receive in cash each month an amount equal to the City flex contribution at time of retirement. C. Life Insurance 1. Management agrees to provide a group term life insurance plan providing life insurance coverage of $50,000 for each full-time classified non -safety employee represented by the Association, a double indemnity accidental death benefit, and a dependent death benefit in the amount of $1,000 per dependent. 19 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 2. Said insurance shall become effective after the employee has completed 30 days of uninterrupted service with said employee to be enrolled in the program on the first day of the next succeeding month. D. Disability Insurance Plan 1. The City shall provide a group insurance plan for income continuation for eligible employees. Said insurance to provide an income continuation of 66.67% of the employee's monthly salary, up to a maximum of $5,000 per month, for a period of time not to exceed the length of injury or illness, up to the age of retirement as designated by the Social Security Administration. 2. Said insurance shall become effective after the employee has completed 30 days of uninterrupted service with said employee to be enrolled in the program on the first day of the next succeeding month. SECTION 9: RETIREMENT A. The retirement program provided by the City shall consist of a pooled Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS) plan, which includes the following Government Code provisions: Section 20042 - One Year final compensation (Single Highest Year) Section 20965 - Credit for unused sick leave Section 21024 - Military Service Credit Section 21573 — 3rd Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits Section 21251.32 — 2% @ 55 B. The employees shall pay the full 7% of their CalPERS required contribution of their compensation earnable. C. New employees/members hired on or after January 1, 2013 as defined by The Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) will be hired at the retirement formula in accordance with PEPRA and other legislation. SECTION 10: HOURS OF WORK A. Prior to implementing a change in work schedule for the Public Works Department from the 4 day schedule, Orange County Employees Association will be notified. Upon request, the City will meet and confer with the Association on the impact of any scheduled change. B. At the discretion of the Department Head: Community Services Officer and Senior Community Services Officer positions may be scheduled in shifts of 9 -hour 4 days each week and one additional 8 hour day on alternate weeks, referred to as the 9/80 plan, or may be scheduled in shifts of 10 -hour 4 days each week, referred P01n99V Resolution Number 7704 OCEA to as the 4/10 plan. Additionally, other non -sworn positions may be scheduled on the 5/8 plan to accommodate training sessions. At the discretion of the Department Head, Public Works Beach Division employees may be scheduled on a 5/8 work shift from May through September. C. Holiday Closures 1. The City Manager may designate up to 5 specific holiday closure work days in each calendar year between Christmas Day and New Year's Day during which employees may be required to take time off, charged to leave without pay, the employee's accumulated compensatory time, vacation, floating holidays, or a combination thereof, as determined by the affected employee. The days must be consecutive for the employee, but may differ between employees. Employees who do not have sufficient accumulated time off in their account to cover the required time off may request, and will be granted, sufficient advance on their vacation accrual to cover the uncovered balance. This advance will be recovered with the next vacation accruals earned by the employee. Time off of work under this provision shall not be deemed a layoff. 2. If an employee is required to work on a City Manager designated holiday closure work day, the employee will receive pay computed at time and one- half employees' basic hourly rate for the number of hours actually worked. Example: Employee A normally works a 10 -hour day, 4 days per week, and is required to work 4 hours on a City Manager designated holiday closure work day on December 28, 2016. Employee A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 4 hours work pay Regular base hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU 6 hours leave time Compensatory time, vacation, floating holiday, or combination thereof 3. All General Unit Orange County Employees Association members shall be granted 1/2 hour paid release time to attend quarterly Association meetings and 2 additional 1/2 hour for meetings to be called at the discretion of the Association. Such release time shall be taken in conjunction with the employees regularly scheduled lunch and shall be approved only after a minimum of 10 days' notice has been given to the City. 5. Police Department Employees are excluded from Section 10C. 21 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA SECTION 11: OVERTIME A. Overtime and Call -Out Pay 1. If work beyond normal workday, workweek or work period is required, the employee who may be asked to perform such overtime shall be notified of the apparent need for such overtime as soon as practicable prior to when the overtime is expected to begin. 2. If the responsible supervisor determines that overtime is necessary on work started on an assigned shift, the assigned employee(s) may continue with that work as an extension of their assigned shift. 3. Call out and overtime pay shall be paid at the rate of time and one- half the hourly rate. Minimum "call out" time (when returning to work) shall be 3 hours. 4. Overtime will be computed by dividing the employee's regular monthly salary by 173.3 to arrive at an hourly wage, and the hourly wage is then multiplied by 1.5 times the actual overtime worked to determine the overtime pay. Paid overtime for the payroll period is to be submitted and computed with the regular payroll. 5. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, employee shall be entitled to select either compensated overtime or compensatory time off subject to budget limitations, departmental rules and regulations, and Section 7 - D of this MOU. B. Court Time 1. All eligible employees called for a subpoenaed court appearance which arises out of the course of employment and not contiguous with the employee's work shift shall be compensated for a minimum of 22/3 hours at the rate of 1'/2 times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Should the appearance exceed 22/3 hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual appearance time, excluded court designated lunch period, at the rate of 1'/2 times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Court appearance time shall begin when the employee departs from the Police Station to go directly to court. 2. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the 22/3 minimum. 3. All employees agree to comply with "on-call" policies administered by their department. Should an eligible employee be placed "on-call" during off duty hours for court appearance(s), he shall be granted 2 hours pay at the employee's straight time hourly rate for any on call time prior to 12:00 noon and 2 hours for all 006199W Resolution Number 7704 on call time after the hour of 12:00 noon. SECTION 12: HOLIDAYS OCEA A. The City agrees to grant all full time employees a full shift pay for each holiday recognized by City. Every full-time employee of the City shall be granted the following holidays with pay: Holiday Date New Year's Day January 1St Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4th Labor Day First Monday in September Veteran's Day November 11th Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November Calendar day following Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve December 24th Christmas Day December 25th *Floating Holidays (2) (discretion of employee) Total of 13 holidays annually *Floating Holidays must be taken during each fiscal year (July 1st through June 30th). Floating holidays must be approved in advance by the Department Head. B. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the next day shall be observed as a holiday. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. C. When a holiday falls on a full-time employee's regularly scheduled day off, the employee shall receive compensatory time off for a full shift in lieu of holiday pay, in keeping with other provisions of this MOU. Example #1: Employee A normally works a 9/80 schedule, and a holiday falls on the employee's Friday off, Employee A would receive 8 hours of compensatory time off. Example #2: Employee B normally works a 9/80 schedule, and a holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, Employee B would receive 9 hours of compensatory time off. 23 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA Example #3: Employee C normally works a 4/10 schedule, and a holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, Employee C would receive 10 hours of compensatory time off. D. An employee who is required to work on a holiday shall receive pay computed at 11/2 times the employees' basic hourly rate for the number of hours actually worked. Example: Employee A works 6 hours on Christmas Day. Employee A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate Full -shift holiday pay base hourly rate 6 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU E. Holidays which fall during an employee's leave time shall not be charged against the employee's leave time balance. SECTION 13: SICK LEAVE A. All full-time employees covered by this MOU shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 1 day (8 hour) per month of service. Sick leave may be accumulated up to and including 520 hours. Except as otherwise provided in this MOU, no employee shall receive further accruals once the 520 hour maximum is reached. B. The Department Head may require employees to present proof of illness for sick leaves in excess of 3 working days. C. Except as otherwise provided, employees shall not be eligible for any payment for sick leave balances upon termination. D. Employees who are on leaves of absence, without pay, shall not accrue sick leave hours during said leaves of absence. E. Sick leave balances may not be used to defer a disability retirement. SECTION 14: VACATION TIME A. All full-time employees covered by this MOU, who have passed the employee probationary period (as defined in the Personnel Rules and Regulations, Section 6.01) shall be granted a vacation with pay of approximately 80 hours per year up to a maximum of approximately 160 hours per year. PZIIWei 9C91 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA B. All full-time employees, who shall have at least 5 years of continuous service, shall be entitled to 8 additional hours of vacation per year of full-time continuous service for each year of service in excess of 5 years up to a maximum of approximately 160 hours per year. C. The vacation accrual schedule is as follows: Years' Service Vacation Hours Earned Maximum Hourly Accrual Rate / Pay Period Bi -Weekly Annual Vacation Hours Maximum Vacation Accrual 1 80 3.0769 80 160 2 80 3.0769 80 160 3 80 3.0769 80 160 4 80 3.0769 80 160 5 80 3.0769 80 160 6 88 3.3846 88 200 7 96 3.6923 96 200 8 104 4.0000 104 200 9 112 4.3076 112 200 10 120 4.6153 120 200 11 128 4.9230 128 240 12 136 5.2307 136 240 13 144 5.5384 144 240 14 152 5.8461 152 240 15 160 6.1538 160 240 D. Employees of the City considered as hourly, part-time and/or seasonal employees shall not be eligible for paid vacation. E. Employees who are on leaves of absence, without pay, shall not accrue vacation leave hours during said leaves of absence. F. All full-time employees shall only be allowed to accrue a maximum of 240 hours of vacation as set forth above. Once this maximum is reached, all further accruals will cease. Vacation accruals will recommence after the employee has taken vacation and the employee's accrued hours drop below the maximum. The maximum can only be exceeded with the approval of the City Manager in writing. G. An employee who makes a reasonable request (2 weeks prior) for time off and is denied, causing the employee to meet or exceed the accrual limit in the pay period for which time off is requested shall be provided the ability to cash out up to 40 hours of accrued vacation time. 25 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA H. Employees are encouraged to use at least the amount of vacation hours earned each fiscal year. Those employees who have been credited with pre- existing leave hours are expected to use a portion of the excess as leave time, in addition to the new vacation hours each year, until the maximum accrual is met. The City recognizes that a number of long-term employees have accrued substantially more leave time than shorter -term employees, and that it will likely take them significantly longer to achieve this goal. It is the intent of this section to balance the personal interests of the employee with the financial concerns of the City; as such, significant progress toward reaching the maximum accrual amounts may be deemed a success. I. Vacation leave time shall not be approved until such time as it has been earned, unless prior, special arrangements have been made with the City Manager. The time at which an employee shall take vacation leave shall be requested by the employee prior to the start of the vacation leave period. Such vacation leave to be taken shall be subject to the prior approval of the Department Head, or designee, subsequent to consideration of the departmental workload and other staffing considerations, such as but not limited to, the previously approved vacation schedule of other employees, sick leave and position vacancies. J. An employee who has completed at least 1 year of continuous service shall, upon request, receive compensation for up to 80 hours of accrued vacation time provided that at least 80 hours remain in the employee's vacation bank. Employees may elect two 40 hour cash outs or a single 80 hour cash out. SECTION 15: LEAVES OF ABSENCE A. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay 1. Upon the Department Head's recommendation and approval of the City Manager, an employee may be granted a leave of absence without pay in cases of an emergency or where such absence would not be contrary to the best interest of the City, for a period not to exceed 180 working days. 2. Upon written request of the employee, the City Council may grant a leave of absence, with or without pay, for a period not to exceed 1 year. 3. At the expiration of the approved leave, after notice to return to duty, the employee shall be reinstated to the position held at the time leave was granted. Failure on the part of the employee to report promptly at such leave's expiration and receipt of notice to return to duty shall be cause for discharge. 4. During any authorized leave of absence without pay, an employee shall not be eligible to accumulate or receive fringe benefits, except an employee shall receive their monthly flex dollar allowance and the City, as specifically provided for in this MOU, shall contribute to the employee's disability insurance W161156199W Resolution Number 7704 OCEA plan, and life insurance plan for the first 30 days of leave of absence. B. Bereavement Leave - The City agrees to provide 40 hours bereavement leave with pay for death in the immediate family. The bereavement leave shall not be chargeable to or accumulated as sick time. "Immediate family" is defined as spouse, registered domestic partner, father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, step -mother, step -father, mother-in-law, father-in-law, registered domestic partner -in-law or dependent relative living with the employee. C. Military Leave of Absence 1. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of Federal and State law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the Department Head an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken. Whenever possible, the employee involved shall notify the Department Head of such leave request 10 working days in advance of the beginning of the leave. 2. In addition to the provisions of State law, the City shall continue to provide eligible employees on military leave, the monthly flex dollar allowance under the cafeteria plan and disability and life insurance and retirement (if applicable) for the first 3 months of military leave. During said period, the employee shall be required to pay to the City the amount that exceeds the monthly flex dollar allowance (if applicable). 3. After the first 3 months of military leave, the employee may continue said benefits at his cost. D. Pregnancy Disability Leave of Absence 1. An employee who is disabled due to pregnancy shall be granted a pregnancy disability leave as provided by the State of California and the Federal Family Medical Leave Act. The employee may elect to take a lesser period of leave. 2. Disabilities arising out of pregnancy shall be treated the same as other temporary disabilities in terms of eligibility for, or entitlement to, leave with or without pay. E. Family Leave - Upon a demonstration of need and subject to the following conditions, an employee may take leave or unpaid leave to care for his newborn infant, whether through parentage or adoption, or to care for a seriously ill or injured member of the employees "immediate family" as defined in Section 15 - B. 1. Proof of the birth or adoption of a newborn infant or the serious illness/injury of the family member must be submitted to the City. 27 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 2. Requests for family leave must be submitted in writing to the employee's supervisor at the earliest possible date proceeding the time when the leave is to begin. 3. Operational needs of the City shall be relevant in determinations regarding the granting of family leave in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. 4. In the event of an extended family leave, the employee may be required to periodically report on the status of the situation giving rise to the leave. 5. Family leave may be granted only upon the recommendation of the Department Head and approval of the City Manager consistent with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. F. Catastrophic Leave - The purpose of the Catastrophic Leave Pool is to enable full time employees to receive and donate vacation, administrative leave, and CTO leave credits on an hour for hour basis to assist employees who have no leave and who will suffer a financial hardship due to prolonged illness or injury to themselves or a member of their immediate family. Sick Leave is excluded from this program. The following conditions shall apply to Catastrophic Leave: 1. Catastrophic Leave will be available only to employees who have exhausted their own paid leave through bona fide serious illness or accident. 2. The leave pool shall be administered by the Finance Department. 3. Employees must be in regular full-time appointed positions to be eligible to receive catastrophic leave. 4. Employees receiving Long -Term Disability payments are excluded from receiving catastrophic leave under this program. 5. All donations are to be confidential, between the donating employee and the Finance Department. 6. Employees donating to the pool must have 40 hours of paid leave available after making a donation. 7. Donating employees must sign an authorization, including specifying the specific employee to be the recipient of the donation. 8. Donations will be subject to applicable tax laws. 9. The availability of Catastrophic Leave shall not delay or prevent the City from taking action to medically separate or disability retire an employee. 28 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA 10. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of an immediate family member may require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician's Statement that the presence of the employee is necessary. 11. Catastrophic Leave due to the illness or injury of the employee will require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician's Statement as to the employee's condition. SECTION 16: JURY DUTY COMPENSATION A. Employees required to report for jury duty shall be granted leaves of absence for such purpose, upon presentation of jury notice to the Department Head. Said employees shall receive full payment for the time served on jury service, provided the employee remits any fees received for such jury service, excluding payment for mileage, to the City's Finance Department. Compensation for mileage, subsistence or similar auxiliary allowance shall not be considered as a fee and shall be returned to the employee by the Finance Department. B. If the sum of the employee's jury duty responsibilities is less than a full work day, the employee shall contact his supervisor as to the feasibility of returning to work that day. C. Any hours worked beyond the regularly scheduled work day shall be subject to the workweek and overtime provisions. An employee may request a change in regularly scheduled working hours to a Monday through Friday day shift for the duration of such jury duty. Such requests shall be granted if practicable. SECTION 17: PROBATIONARY PERIODS A. Appointment Following Probation Period 1. The original appointment and promotional appointment of employees shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of 6 months of service. 2. When unusual circumstances merit the extension of the probationary period, the Department Head shall request, in writing, approval of the City Manager. Said extension shall not exceed 180 days. The Personnel Office shall notify the Department Head and the probationer concerned no -less -than 2 weeks prior to the termination of any probationary period. 3. If the service of a probationary employee has been satisfactory, the Department Head shall file with the Personnel Office a statement, in writing, that the retention of the employee is desired. No actions changing an employee's status from probationary to regular full-time shall be made or become effective until approved by the City Manager. 29 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA B. Objective of Probationary Period - The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new employee to his position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the required standards of work. C. Employee Performance Appraisal 1. Each probationary employee shall have his performance evaluated at the end of six (6) months of service or at a more frequent interval when deemed necessary by the Department Head. Such evaluation shall be reported in writing and in the form approved by the Personnel Office. 2. The written appraisal report of an employee's performance evaluation shall be filed in the Personnel Office and made a part of the employee's personnel records, with one copy to be given to the employee. D. Resection of Probationary Employee 1. During the probationary period an employee may be suspended, demoted, or rejected anytime by the Department Head, with approval of the City Manager, without cause and without right of appeal, except the right of appeal of punitive action as may be provided by law. Notification of rejection, in writing, shall be served on the probationary employee and a copy filed with the Personnel Office. A termination interview may be conducted with each rejected probationer. 2. An exception will be applied where the probationary employee's job termination or dismissal is based on charges of misconduct which stigmatizes his reputation or seriously impairs his opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously damage his standing and association in the community. Where there is such a deprivation of a "liberty interest", the employee shall be given pre - disciplinary procedural due process as defined in the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations and this MOU. Prior to the disciplinary action becoming final, the employee must be notified of his right to the appeal procedure as outlined in the Rules and Regulations. SECTION 18: LAYOFF PROCEDURES A. The appointing authority may lay off employees or demote employees in lieu of layoff subject to Section II - TERMINATION of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. B. Notwithstanding Section II of the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations, the City agrees to apply the following as part of the definition of seniority in layoffs. 30 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA C. Whenever seniority is equal, the seniority of the employee shall be determined first by examining continuous service within the affected classification and if not determinative, then by position on the employment list. SECTION 19: SAFETY COMMITTEE PROGRAM A Citywide Safety Committee Program will be implemented; an employee representing each department will participate and will meet on a quarterly basis. SECTION 20: DRUG & SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE HOLDERS Anti -Drug & Alcohol Policy A. Employees of the City of Seal Beach who are required to possess a commercial driver's license - Class A or B - to operate a City vehicle in the scope of their employment, or employees who perform safety sensitive functions will be subject to controlled substance and alcohol testing rules in accordance with Federal Regulations 49CFR, Parts 382, 391, 392 and 395. B. This policy reflects the City's compliance with the applicable Federal laws in conjunction with a commitment to provide a safe environment for its employees and the public alike. Only covered employee positions and covered employees performing safety sensitive functions are expected to comply with this policy. By implementing this policy, the goal is to ensure a drug and alcohol -free transportation environment and to reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities. SECTION 21: ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. Merger of Negotiations - This MOU represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and previous Memorandums of Understanding of whatsoever kind of nature are merged herein. B. Notwithstanding the provision of Sub -section A, there exists within the City certain personnel rules and regulations and department rules and regulations. To the extent that this MOU does not specifically contradict these personnel rules and regulations or department rules and regulations or City ordinances, they shall continue subject to being changed by the City in accordance with the exercise of City rights under this MOU and applicable state law. C. Except as provided herein, other terms and conditions of employment, oral or written, express or implied that are presently enjoyed by employees represented by the Association shall remain in full force and effect during the entire term of this MOU unless mutually agreed to the contrary by both parties hereto. 31 of 33 Resolution Number 7704 OCEA D. Separability - If any provision of the MOU or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of the MOU or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. E. Reopener Clause - City and Association agree to reconvene during the terms of this MOU to discuss the results and implementation of the City's salary study of OCEA represented classifications. SECTION 22: HEALTH WELLNESS PROGRAM The City shall reimburse Employee, as a medical benefit, for Employee's actual documented expenses for medical maintenance exams or the cost of participation in wellness programs, in an amount not to exceed $400 per fiscal year. Reimbursement shall be subject to participation in wellness programs, and will follow the City's normal reimbursement processes and requirements for such expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall include but not be limited to, actual out of pocket expenses for annual physical examinations or other medical tests or examinations, participation in weight loss, stop smoking, fitness or other similar programs, or membership in a health or fitness club. SECTION 23: TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in full force and effect from July 1, 2025 until midnight, June 30, 2028. SECTION 24: EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION In the event of circumstances beyond the control of the City, such as acts of God, fire, flood, civil disorder, national emergency, or similar circumstances, provisions of this MOU or the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City, which prevent the City's ability to respond to these emergencies, shall be suspended for the duration of such emergency. After the emergency is over, the Association shall have the right to meet and confer with the City regarding the impact on employees of the suspension of these provisions in the MOU and any Personnel Rules and Regulations. SECTION 25: RATIFICATION This MOU is subject to approval and adoption by the City Council and ratification by the required number of the duly authorized representatives of the Association. Following such approval and adoption, the MOU shall be implemented by the appropriate resolutions(s), ordinance(s), or other written action of the City Council. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have hereto caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be executed this 27th day of October 2025. 006199V Resolution Number 7704 OCEA CITY OF SEAL BEACH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES: Date: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance Date: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: Alisha Greene, OCEA Labor Relations Representative Dominic Sarabia Aine Eisenhauer Derrick Fitzgerald Garrett Rowan 33 of 33 Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: i�0� SEA('ec�9ti f� G� nyy AGENDA STAFF REPORT �1'',,C'QCIFORN�P'r DATE: October 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM: Shaun Temple, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of Resolution approving Amendments to the Housing Element of the Seal Beach General Plan for the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Planning Period, Adoption of Ordinances Amending Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and the Main Street Specific Plan, and Adoption of a Resolution Finding that the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Related Zoning Code Amendment and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment are Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Housing Element Update and Related Zoning Code Amendment and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment are Inconsistent with the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7705 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act for the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update, and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan; and, 3. Adopt Resolution 7706 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; and, 4. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1721 amending Title 11 (Zoning Code) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Agenda Item H establish the Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone and related development standards (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 5. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1722 amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 6. Introduce, waive full reading and read by title only Ordinance 1723 amending the Main Street Specific Plan to allow residential uses subject to limitations (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 7. Adopt Resolution 7707 Finding that: a. The Seal Beach General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. b. The related Amendments to Title 11 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Zoning Code and Zoning Map) are Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Zoning Code Amendment are Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. c. The related Amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Main Street Specific Plan Amendment is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: State law requires that each city adopt a General Plan to guide land use and development. Among the seven required "elements" of the General Plan is the Housing Element. The Housing Element sets forth goals, policies, and programs that address the future housing needs for all income levels over an eight (8) year planning period. Following adoption by the City Council, the Housing Element must be certified by the State's Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) to be found in compliance with State law. The eight-year Housing Element planning periods are sometimes referred to as "cycles." The City's previously adopted Housing Element was adopted in 2013, and covered the planning period 2013-2021, which is referred to as the "Fifth Housing Element Cycle" in reference to the five (5) required updates that have occurred since the comprehensive revision to the State Housing Element law in 1980. The current Housing Element covers the planning period for 2021-2029, which is referred to as the "Sixth Housing Element Cycle" or "Sixth Cycle." It is critical to note that this Sixth Cycle is unlike any of its predecessors. The widely discussed state housing crisis has resulted in dozens of legislative bills over the years aimed at increasing the supply of housing within California. The Housing Element process, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, jurisdictional responsibilities, and oversight by HCD were all either impacted or directly changed by many of these bills. Cities and counties throughout the state are struggling to produce Housing Element updates that meet the stringent new standards, and Seal Beach is no different. The repercussions for failing to have a certified Housing Element include loss of grant funding, increased legal challenges, referral by HCD to the State Attorney General, and in extreme circumstances, loss of authority to make land use decisions and issue permits. On February 7, 2022, following public review and comment and discussions with HCD, the City Council considered and adopted the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element. As required by State law, the Housing Element was submitted to HCD which in turn provided the City a comment letter requiring additional revisions. Several versions of the Draft Housing Element were drafted and reviewed by HCD between 2022 and 2024, based on their comments. On October 17, 2024, HCD acknowledged that the draft Housing Element appropriately addressed all State requirements for certification pending rezoning of sites necessary to accommodate the City's RHNA, which are discussed and explained later in this staff report. The draft Housing Element presented to the City Council includes several updates and increased analysis in response to the comments received from HCD on the prior drafts. Background on the General Plan The General Plan can be thought of as a city's "constitution for development," or the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It establishes policies and programs that assist decision makers as they review planning approvals for a new project or consider a proposed ordinance or policy. As such, the General Plan provides the foundational guide for planning and policy, outlining how land is to be used and how a city allocates its resources. The Seal Beach General Plan includes a total of eight elements, covering specific aspects of land use and planning. Besides Housing, the other elements include Land Use, Circulation/Mobility, Open Space/Recreation/Conservation, Safety, Noise, Cultural Resources and Growth Management. Recent changes to state law also require the City to review and update the Safety Element and adopt an Environmental Justice Element. The City is in the process of working on these latter two elements. Housing Element Update The Housing Element identifies the City's housing conditions and needs, establishes goals, objectives, and policies that are foundational to the City's housing strategy, and provides an array of programs to fulfill the requirements of the Housing Element. One of the key roles of the Housing Element is to determine ways in which the City will address housing growth. A specific number of new housing units are assigned to each city through the RHNA process, and the Housing Element must include a plan to accommodate those units. The RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating the local housing element of the General Plan. More detailed discussion on RHNA is provided later in this report. As outlined above, every city and county in the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) region is required to prepare a Housing Element update for the Sixth Planning Cycle, which spans the 2021-2029 planning period (October 15, 2021 - October 15, 2029). The following provides a general timeline describing major milestones in preparing the draft Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update: • March 4, 2021 — SCAG finalized RHNA allocations for all SCAG jurisdictions. • March 8, 2021 — The City Council and the Planning Commission held a joint open public meeting which included a joint study session/workshop. • March 2021 - October 2021 - The Housing Element community online survey was made available to the public, although it resulted in limited responses from community members. • April 5, 2021, and April 27, 2021 — the Housing Element Ad -Hoc Committee held an open public meeting and discussed the sites inventory (potential sites within the City to accommodate additional housing). • September 9, 2021 — In compliance with Senate Bill SB 18 notification requirements (Tribal Consultation), City staff mailed a project description to local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No requests for consultation or comments were received during the requisite 90 -day response period for this notification. • September 20, 2021 — The City Council and the Planning Commission held the second open joint study session/workshop to review and comment on the draft Housing Element document and to receive public comments from interested community stakeholders. • September 21, 2021 - The Draft Housing Element was transmitted to the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a 60 -day review. • November 17, 2021 — City staff met virtually with HCD staff to receive preliminary verbal comments on the draft document. • November 19, 2021 — The City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. • January 6, 2022 - City staff revised the draft Housing Element in response to HCD's comments and posted the draft Housing Element on the City's website. • January 18, 2022 — The Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Housing Element. • February 7, 2022 — The City Council held a public hearing and adopted the Housing Element. • February 9, 2022 — The adopted Housing Element was transmitted to HCD per State Law. • February 17, 2022 - OC ALUC held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and found it inconsistent with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. • April 8, 2022 — The City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the Housing Element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD's November 19, 2021, letter, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. • August 29, 2022 — The City Council held a public meeting to consider overruling ALUC's determination of inconsistency, and at that meeting adopted Resolution 7324 overruling ALUC's determination of inconsistency and found that the Housing Element is consistent with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. • August 31, 2023 — The City transmitted to HCD the revised draft Housing Element in response to HCD's letter. • September 27, 2023 — A Town Hall meeting was held in Leisure World, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element along with a questions and answers session. • October 17, 2023 — A community workshop was held to receive community feedback on the zoning amendments and objective design standards for the new mixed-use zone. • October 30, 2023 — The City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. • December 6, 2023 — Environmental Quality Control Board hosted a Scoping Meeting for the EIR of the Housing Element and rezone program. • April 19, 2024 — The City transmitted to HCD the revised draft Housing Element in response to the HCD's letter. • June 18, 2024 - The City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. • August 27, 2024 — The City transmitted to HCD the revised draft Housing Element in response to HCD's letter. • October 17, 2024 — The City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but also notifying the City that the Housing Element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed the rezoning and adopted the Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone and other related actions. • April 30, 2025 — The City received a written letter from HCD inquiring about the status of the City's Housing Element update. • May 19, 2025 — The City provided a response letter explaining that in addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Housing Element to HCD, the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts as required by HCD and the required evaluation of the environmental impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement the Zoning Code update. The letter also provided an estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezoning concurrently with the adoption of the Housing Element. • June 25, 2025 — A Special Meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board to solicit comments Regarding the Content of the Draft EIR. • August 7, 2025 — OC ALUC held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and Rezoning Program and found it inconsistent with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. • September 17, 2025 — An Environmental Quality Control Board meeting to present the Final EIR and a discussion regarding CEQA reform related to housing and the Housing Element was held. • October 6, 2025 — The Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 25-08 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopted Resolution No. 25-09 recommending that the City Council approve the Housing Element and adopt the amendments to the Zoning Code, including the amendments to the Zoning Code text amendments, the Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan. All public meetings listed above that were conducted by the City have videos recordings maintained and archived on the City Website under Council and Commission Meetings. For purposes of easier review during the public hearing period of this Housing Element, the videos are also being maintained collectively on the Housing Element update website at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Housing-Element-Update Seal Beach Draft 2021-2029 Housina Element Uodate Content State law (California Government Code Sec. 65583 et seq.) sets forth extensive requirements for Housing Elements and related land use regulations related to housing. The key components of the Housing Element Update include evaluation and update of previous Housing Element programs; the housing needs assessment including the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation; evaluation of constraints to housing; identification of opportunity sites to address the RHNA; the 2021-2029 Housing Action Plan; and the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) component. The Housing Element Update is included as Attachment P to this staff report (Exhibit "A" to Attachment B, CC Resolution 7706). Arguably, the most important part of the Housing Element is the Housing Action Plan because it describes the City's policies, programs, and objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period, essentially providing the roadmap for how the City will facilitate the development of housing. The Housing Element Update includes 54 Housing Programs that reflect current circumstances and include commitments for specific actions during the current Planning Period. While most programs reflect a continuation of existing City policy, some will require the City to consider new programs. Additionally, some programs are necessary due to recent changes in State housing law that require the City to amend local zoning regulations as required by current law and described in the following programs. • Program la: Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Rezone sites to allow for housing development where currently prohibited or limited) • Program 1 b: Mixed Use Development Zones (Create a mixed-use zone that meets state requirements for RHNA site designation, specifically to facilitate housing for lower income households.) • Program 1f: Replacement Housing Program. If residential development on any property rezoned to accommodate the RHNA involves demolition of existing residential units, the City will require replacement pursuant to Government Code §65583.2(g)(3). (For compliance with new legislation regarding removal of units.) • Program 1 h: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Revisions and updates to the City's adopted ADU Ordinance as needed for consistency with State law. (For compliance with new legislation and evolving direction from HCD.) • Program 1i: Accessory Dwelling Units Amnesty Program. (To encourage and facilitate the legalization and permitting of unpermitted ADUs constructed before January 1, 2020.) • Program 1 k: Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Transitional/Supportive Housing. (AB 139 (2019) revised State law regarding parking standards for emergency shelters. (To ensure that City development standards and procedures continue to provide adequate sites for emergency shelters, parking requirements for emergency shelters will be amended consistent with current law.) • Program 1m: Streamlined Permit Processing and Transparency. (SB 35 (2017) requires streamlined ministerial approval procedures under certain circumstances. (The City will establish and implement written procedures to ensure conformance with SB 35 to reduce barriers to housing development.) • Program 1r: Modify the Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing in designated areas. (See Program 1b). Programs 1 a, 1 b and 1 r are components of the Zoning Code Amendment which are concurrently considered with the Housing Element Update, and which are discussed in detail later in this staff report. Regional Housing Needs Assessment As mentioned, a significant issue discussed in the Housing Element and included in the Action Plan is the way the City will accommodate its share of regional housing needs assigned through the RHNA process. The RHNA is mandated by State law to quantify the need for housing throughout the State. This informs the local planning process to address existing and future housing needs resulting from current demand, plus projected state-wide growth in population, employment, and households. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for overseeing the RHNA process for the Southern California region, which encompasses six (6) counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. In March 2021, SCAG assigned RHNA allocations to Seal Beach and other SCAG area cities. Seal Beach was assigned a total of 1,243 housing units at specified income levels as shown in the following table. Source: SCAG, 3/4/2021 The RHNA identifies the amount of additional housing at different affordability levels a jurisdiction would need to fully accommodate its existing population plus its assigned share of projected growth over the 2021-2029 planning period while avoiding problems like overcrowding and overpayment. The RHNA is a planning requirement based upon housing needs, not a construction quota or mandate. The primary significance of the RHNA is that jurisdictions are required to adopt land use plans and development regulations that create sufficient opportunities for different types of housing development commensurate with the RHNA allocation. Under current law, cities are not penalized if actual housing production does not achieve the RHNA allocation, but cities may be required to streamline the approval process for qualifying housing developments that meet specific standards (such as affordability and prevailing wage labor requirements) if housing production falls short of the RHNA allocation. The Housing Element must demonstrate compliance with the RHNA by analyzing the City's capacity for additional housing based on an evaluation of land use patterns, development regulations, potential constraints (such as infrastructure availability and environmental conditions) and real estate market trends. The analysis must be prepared at a parcel -specific level of detail and identify properties (or "sites") where additional housing could be built under current regulations. State law requires that the sites analysis demonstrate that city land use plans and regulations provide adequate capacity to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in each income category. If insufficient capacity currently exists to fully accommodate the RHNA, the Housing Element must describe proactive steps the City will take to increase housing capacity commensurate with the RHNA — typically through amendments to land use plans and development regulations that could facilitate production of additional housing. Such amendments generally include increasing allowable residential densities, modifying other development standards, or allowing housing to be built in areas where residential development is not currently allowed, such as areas zoned for commercial use. The sites inventory is only an estimate of potential housing development based on local regulations and assumptions established in State law. As discussed in Appendix B of the Housing Element, (Attachment P, included as Exhibit "A" to Attachment B, CC Resolution 7706) the capacity for additional housing based on current land use patterns and zoning regulations is not sufficient to accommodate the RHNA allocation; therefore, a rezoning program is required. Appendix B of the Housing Element identifies candidate sites to be considered for rezoning and general plan land use amendment. Implementation of some of these programs would be subject to separate analysis, public hearings, and environmental review except for Programs 1 a and 1 b which are part of the Zoning Code Amendment discussed later in this report. Because the City failed to adopt a housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, it must conclude its rezoning programs concurrently with the Housing Element program for HCD to certify the Housing Element. It is important to note that even following adoption by the City Council and certification from HCD, the Housing Element remains a living document, particularly as it relates to housing sites. The City must maintain ample sites to achieve the RHNA allocation throughout the 8 -year cycle, until a new RHNA number is assigned. That means if one or more of the selected sites develop at a lower density than anticipated, the units that were not accommodated at those sites will have to be "moved" elsewhere, which could mean having to select even more potential housing sites than those recommended in this draft. This is the reason why the sites selected, in total, can accommodate more than the RHNA allocation, in order to provide a buffer that will reduce the need to come back and rezone a second time during the cycle. It is important to note that Housing Element Update is strictly a policy document and does not provide entitlements to any specific land use projects. Affirmativelv Furtherina Fair Housina (AFFH Pursuant to Assembly Bill 686 (2018), the Housing Element must include an analysis and determination of consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. AFFH is defined as "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics." To assess current disparities, if any, the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update includes a detailed Assessment of Fair Housing (Goal 5 — Programs 5a — 5k and Appendix F) as well as an analysis of the inventory of adequate sites suitable for housing development to meet the RHNA. State Housing and Community Development (HCD) Review An important difference between the Housing Element and other elements of the General Plan is the extent of State oversight. The State legislature has declared an adequate supply of housing to be a matter of statewide importance and has delegated authority to HCD to review city Housing Elements and issue opinions regarding their compliance with State law. A finding of Housing Element compliance by HCD is referred to as "certification" of the Housing Element. As mentioned previously, recent legislative changes have given HCD increased oversight of cities and made certification critical to several city functions. As shown previously in this document (general timeline), HCD has reviewed multiple iterations of the Housing Element from 2021 through 2024, and on October 17, 2024 it found the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but because of new state laws, the Housing Element could not be found in compliance until the City also completed its Zoning Code Amendment (Programs la — rezoning; Program lb — establishment of the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone; and Program 1 r - amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan to allow residential uses in certain areas). (HCD's Comment letters and City Responses are included in Exhibit "B" to Attachment B, Resolution 7706) The City's last response to HCD included a timeline to complete the necessary rezonings and adopt the updated Housing Element by October 27, 2025 (City Council hearing date) and submit the Housing Element and the adopted Zoning Code Amendment to HCD on October 28, 2025. HCD then will issue its opinion as to whether the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element complies with State housing law. HCD has 60 days to complete its subsequent review of the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. Zoning Code Update The Housing Element must include an inventory of adequate sites that are zoned and available within the planning period to meet the jurisdiction's fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels. As discussed above, Appendix B of the Housing Element discusses the inventory of nine identified opportunity sites plus one pipeline project site (the Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Specific Plan).' Six of the sites require rezoning to allow the opportunity for housing development. The Zoning Code Amendment involves the creation of a new zoning category that would allow for high density residential, mixed-use developments under Program 1.b called Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone (MC/RHD). This new MC/RHD zone will allow residential development with a maximum density of up to 46 dwelling units per acre and will require a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. The MC/RHD zone requires that at least fifty percent (50%) of the building floor area of a mixed-use development be dedicated to residential uses; and provides for housing by -right if at least twenty percent (20%) of the units are affordable to lower-income households. The new Zone will include new development standards along with Objective Development standards. Since they are too numerous to incorporate into the staff report, please refer to Exhibit "A" of attached Ordinance 1721 (Attachment C). The 1 Under current zoning regulations, the ORCC is zoned Recreational Golf (RG), which allows multiple unit residential with a conditional use permit in conjunction with a golf course. (SBMC § 11.2.20.010, Table 11.2.20.010.) new MC/RHD Zone will also be implemented by the amendment of the City's zoning map to change the zoning designation of five sites to MC/RHD. (See Attachment N, included as Exhibit "A" to Attachment D, Ordinance 1722) Five of the sites to be rezoned to MC/RHD are listed below along with their current zoning designation. Appendix B of the Housing Element identifies the location of the sites with aerial maps. Site and Current Usage Current Zone Site 4: Accurate Storage: Indoor and outdoor storage High Density Residential (RHD — 20) Maximum density facility with surface parking 20 units/acre. Site 5: The Shops at Rossmoor: Multi -tenant strip mall General Commercial (CG) with surface parking Site 6: Old Ranch Town Center: Multi -tenant strip mall General Commercial (CG) with surface parking Site 7: Seal Beach Plaza: Multi -tenant strip mall with General Commercial (CG) surface parking Site 8: Seal Beach Center: Multi -tenant strip mall with General Commercial (CG) surface parking The sixth site to be rezoned is at 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and 1St Street intersection (Opportunity Site #9). It is currently zoned Oil Extraction (OE) and primarily vacant. This 4.3 -acre site is proposed to be re -zoned as RHD - 33 (Residential High Density — maximum 33 units per acre). This zoning effort fulfills Program la — provide adequate sites for housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code. Main Street Specific Plan Amendment Aside from Programs la and 1b, Program 1r, Amendment of the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) would allow new residential units to be developed within the MSSP area, except on the first floor facing any street that is within the MSSP area, such as Main Street or Ocean Avenue. Residential units have historically been developed on Main Street on the second floor or facing the alley. Many of those units still exist and are inhabited. At least since the most recent MSSP was adopted in 1996, new residential units have not been allowed. As Main Street already exists developed in this Mixed Use pattern of commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor or at the rear of the property, the character of Main Street would not change. The proposed amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan are set out in Attachment O (included as Exhibit "A" to Attachment E, Ordinance 1723). October 6, 2025, Planning Commission Hearing The Planning Commission considered the draft Housing Element Update, the draft amendments to the Zoning Code and Zoning Map, amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report together with the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Some discussion took place regarding the history and milestones of the Housing Element. Commissioner Campbell expressed concern of the Old Ranch Country Club Project being mentioned within the Housing Element and that she could not support the Housing Element because of that reason. Commissioner Mingione expressed concern that the Zone Text Amendment was written in a way that could unintentionally make it difficult for commercial uses in the new mixed-use zone to switch from one commercial use to another without being classified as non -conforming as they would not include new residential use. Staff explained the residential requirement was intended for new development and not for the switch of commercial uses within an existing structure. Staff stated that the code would be updated to reflect that intention before being brought to City Council. A few standards related to setbacks in the new mixed-use zone were also discussed for further refinement. After deliberating, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Commissioner Campbell voting No), adopting Resolution No. 25-08, recommending the City Council Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and then voted 3-1 (Commissioner Campbell voting No), adopting Resolution No. 25-09, recommending that the City Council adopt the Housing Element Update and adopt the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan. (Copies of the Planning Commission Resolution 25-08 and 25-09 are included as Attachments H and I, respectively.) Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission State law establishes the creation of advisory committees to provide for the orderly development of public use airports and surrounding uses. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 216744(a), the purpose of an airport land use commission is to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible land uses. In Orange County, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) acts as that advisory board for three airports, John Wayne Airport, Fullerton Airport, and the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB). Under the PUC, local agencies must submit certain land use planning actions within the vicinity of those airports to the ALUC for its advisory review. The ALUC examines submitted proposed planning actions for consistency with ALUC's adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), for planning areas designated in the AELUP. The AELUP for the JFTB was most recently updated in 2017, and includes a variety of information designed to help development in those planning areas be compatible with the airport use, including heights, noise, and general safety. These topics are more thoroughly described later in this staff report. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the following related documents were submitted to the ALUC on April 24, 2025: the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). On August 7, 2025, the ALUC was presented with those documents for their consistency review under the PUC. Following presentation of the ALUC staff report, an ALUC commissioner asked whether the Old Ranch Specific Plan (ORCC) is included in the Housing Element; and a response was provided that that the residential dwelling unit count of the proposed ORCC project is included only for purposes of analysis of the RHNA requirements, and that the ORCC project is undergoing separate environmental analysis that would be separately presented for consideration by the City at a future date. Without discussion, the ALUC voted unanimously (5-0) to find the Housing Element and each proposed Zoning Code amendments to be inconsistent with the AELUP. The ALUC Recording Secretary thereafter forwarded a letter to the City, dated August 11, 2025, confirming the ALUC inconsistency determination. (A copy of the August 11, 2025 ALUC letter is included as Attachment J; and attached as Exhibit "A" to Attachment F, CC Resolution 7707). The ALUC determination was presented to the City Council on September 8, 2025, at which time the Council adopted Resolution 7691, which provides that the Council will consider whether to overrule the ALUC's findings of inconsistency. PUC Section 21676(b) requires that prior to making a decision on whether to overrule an ALUC inconsistency determination, the City must provide at least 45 days' notice to the ALUC and the State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (DOT), and conduct a public hearing. Following the September 8, 2025 City Council meeting, staff notified the ALUC and the DOT/Division of Aeronautics of the City Council's action, and provided each of them with a copy of Resolution 7691. Response letters were received from the chairperson of the ALUC and from the DOT/Division of Aeronautics (Attachments K and L). Those comments are advisory to the City Council, and must be included in the public record of the City Council's final action. The topics raised will be addressed later in this staff report. The City Council has three possible courses of action regarding the ALUC's determination, as follows. 1. The City Council may choose to take no action. Staff does not recommend this option, as it is likely to result in the ALUC imposing a requirement to review all land use actions, regulations, and permits under PUC Section 21676.5, which would substantially delay entitlement and building permit processes including those related to meeting the City's RHNA. Moreover, based on the letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) written to the City of Los Alamitos, it seems clear HCD will not certify the Housing Element if the City does not overrule the ALUC. 2. The City Council may choose to identify alternative sites for new housing units, amend the Housing Element, and resubmit the revised document to ALUC for consistency review. Again, staff does not recommend this option. The City would need to identify alternative sites for new housing units that HCD would find acceptable, amend the Housing Element, and submit it to HCD for consideration. Much like the process that unfolded over the last four years, staff expects such an option would take years to accomplish, placing the City at risk of fines, litigation, and builder's remedy projects. Additionally, the current EIR would be rendered unusable, and a new one may need to be completed. This action would not guarantee a finding of consistency from the ALUC, particularly as the ALUC has not provided specific findings related to the AELUP that can be addressed. 3. The City Council may overrule the ALUC, which is staff's recommendation. The Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Los Alamitos overruled the ALUC after it also issued findings of inconsistency with their respective housing elements. An action overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination would allow the City to move closer to Housing Element certification from HCD. Response Letters to Adoption of Resolution 7691 Response letters from the Chairperson of ALUC and an Aviation Planner from the DOT/Division of Aeronautics were received after the City notified the ALUC and DOT/Division of Aeronautics of the City Council's adoption of Resolution 7691. The letters are generally focused on sites being located within the 60 CNEL noise contour and concern for residential being built within the general airport area increasing exposure to aviation accidents. As noted above, the ALUC inconsistency action on September 8, 2025 did not set forth any evidence or rationale for their decision, and the letter from the ALUC chairperson includes his opinion only. General Land Use Compatibility The ALUC Chairperson's October 8, 2025 letter notes "the Commission is charged by PUC Section 21674 (a) `to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ... existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses,' and PUC Section 21674(b) `to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare."' In drafting the Housing Element, the City worked diligently to identify the housing opportunity sites contained in the Housing Element, including consultation with the adopted AELUP, which was drafted specifically by the ALUC for the purpose of creating compatibility between the JFTB and surrounding uses. As set forth in the City's General Plan, all development on the proposed housing opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards set forth in the AELUP. The Housing Element acknowledges the requirement that all elements of the General Plan must be internally consistent, and residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element and constraints to development identified in the Safety and Noise Elements are reflected in the Housing Element. The Housing Element also identifies the role of the ALUC in assisting the City in assuring land use compatibility near the JFTB, for those portions within the areas subject to ALUC review, including restrictions on safety and noise, and consistency with the AELUP. Noise The AELUP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system for measuring noise impacts, which is a weighted average of noise over time. The AELUP defines the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as "Moderate Noise Impact" and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as "High Impact." (AELUP Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4.) Residential uses are identified as "conditionally consistent" for the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and "normally inconsistent" for the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (AELUP Section 3, Table 1 "Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise"). The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or Noise Impact Zone 2. Instead, the AELUP provides that residential uses should be developed with insulation systems that bring the sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside, consistent with the City's General Plan Noise Element and State Building Code. The City's Noise Element acknowledges the AELUP; it further states that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable for multi -family residential uses. The ALUC Chairperson's letter acknowledges housing development is conditionally consistent with the AELUP with interior sound attenuation, but states that outdoor areas still have exposure. However, the Chairperson's letter did not acknowledge that the AELUP, in Section 2.1.1 (3), specifically identifies why the 60 dB CNEL contour were chosen: (1) this level is prescribed in the California Noise Insulation Standards as the criterion for enforcing the use of sound insulation; and (2) the flexible nature of a CNEL contour requires that some leeway from the 65 dB level, prescribed in the Noise Standards for California Airports, be created in order to protect inhabitants of the airport environs from noise. As adopted, the AELUP text means that the 60 dB CNEL is an area meant for residential use with sound insulation. It should be noted that most City areas, outside single-family residential neighborhoods, are regularly within noise areas of 60 to 70 dB, especially when located within the area of highly traveled roadways, and the proposed rezoning is for mixed-use within commercial shopping areas. Safety AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at the JFTB. Accident potential zones (APZ) and clear zones (CZ) were set in 1994 and based on Department of Defense criteria. According to the AELUP, prior to 1995, the ALUC utilized a 10 -year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located within the boundaries of JFTB, and no additional accident potential zones are identified in the adopted AELUP beyond the clear zones. The Chairperson's letter acknowledges that none of the housing opportunity sites are located within the APZs or CZs, but contends the ALUC finding of inconsistency is based upon a broader definition of safety. His response letter does not clearly identify the parameters of this broader definition, or cite to any finding by the ALUC as a whole for their inconsistency rationale. The chairperson's letter suggests his analysis is based upon the following general statement in Section 2.2 of the AELUP: "the Commission may consider the utilization of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or safety surface sufficient to justify such an action." The chairperson also refers to Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP, which provides only general land use policies, without listing any identifiable factors leading to the AELUP's position. The substantial efforts that went into identifying the opportunity sites had only the established AELUP standards available for reference, and it is unclear how to respond to or satisfy the vague broader definition suggested by ALUC. In Staff's research of the AELUP, infill projects are allowed but must comply with all applicable specific policies, which the opportunity sites do because they do not violate height restrictions, are consistent with noise and safety policies, and are not within identified APZs or CZs. As noted, the City's Housing Element expressly recognizes the need for development to comply with all elements of the General Plan, including the Noise and Safety Element. The Safety Element also acknowledges JFTB impact zones, requirements relating to height and notice, and provides that the City will consider the findings of the ALUC and FAA in its decision-making on individual projects Liability During Council discussions on September 8, 2025 when the overrule process was initiated, questions regarding liability were raised because PUC Section 21678 states that if the City overrides ALUC's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune to liability from damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the City's decision to overrule the ALUC determination. The discussion of liability is a complex one, particularly in this case, where the airport is operated by the military, specifically the U.S. Army. Generally speaking, the U.S. Government is already exempt from liability for accidents resulting from military activities. The PUC does not provide immunity to any other entities, including other aircraft operators. Further, the Government Code grants immunity to jurisdictions from liability related to issuing a permit. Ultimately, developers assume liability for their projects. Toniaht's Action Pursuant to the PUC, not less than 45 -days after the Resolution 7691 was sent to the ALUC and DOT/Division of Aeronautics, the City Council may conduct a public hearing, after which the City Council may decide whether to adopt a resolution to overrule the ALUC and make specific findings that the Housing Element and associated Zoning Code and MSSP Amendments are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as set forth in PUC Section 21670. The resolution to overrule the ALUC must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Pursuant to the PUC, upon adoption of an overrule action, the Housing Element, and Zoning Code, Zoning Map and MSSP Amendments shall not be subject to further ALUC review. As noted previously, staff recommends the City Council overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency. The City Council must weigh all obligations that have been levied upon it by the State, which has for the last five years repeatedly placed housing development at the forefront of its policies. Unfortunately, the burden of responsibility has been placed on cities without regard to physical circumstances such as coastal zones, protected land, military installations, or airports, all of which are challenges the City faces as it seeks to not only identify sites for 1,243 housing units, but to defend the suitability of those sites. Failure to do so may result in loss of grant funding (potentially millions of dollars), exposure to increased legal challenges, referral by HCD to the State Attorney General for potential legal actions, and in extreme circumstances, loss of authority to make land use decisions and issue permits. A proposed resolution overruling the ALUC finding of inconsistency is included as Attachment F to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Prior to adopting the 2021-2019 (6t" Cycle) Housing Element Update, the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan, the City Council must first review and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified by State Clearinghouse Number (SCH No.) 2023110425, adopt the Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City contracted with Stantec Consulting Services, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare the Draft EIR for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. A copy of the Draft EIR was made available on the City's website, at the two Seal Beach Public Libraries and at the Community Development Department in City Hall. A copy of the Final EIR, including the Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses to Comments, is separately included with this Staff Report as Attachment Q and will be Exhibit "A" to Attachment A, CC Resolution 7705. CEQA requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Final EIR was prepared to satisfy CEQA and meet the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the Project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. For those significant environmental impacts that may be mitigated, the lead agency must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. CEQA also requires that the lead agency adopt findings, and if there are any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, must also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The "project" under review consists of policy documents including the Housing Element Update and related Zoning Code and Main Street Specific Plan updates including creation of the proposed MC/RHD Zone, rezoning of six sites to MC/RHD in order to accommodate residential development, and amendment of the Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second floor or above. As the project does not involve or include development/construction, a Program EIR was prepared instead of a project -level EIR. A project EIR generally focuses on the environmental changes caused by a development project, including planning, construction and operation. A Program EIR, on the other hand, generally looks at the broad policies of planning documents, i.e. Housing Element Update and zoning amendments, and may not address potential site-specific impacts of the individual projects that may fall within the planning documents because the project does not approve specific development proposals. As noted above, the Housing Element includes the residential units proposed as part of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project for the City's compliance with its RHNA obligation under State housing law. As a pipeline project, the ORCC Specific Plan is a development project that is undergoing separate environmental review pursuant to a project EIR, and the project EIR for the ORCC Specific Plan is separately evaluating and addressing any potential environmental impacts resulting from the development proposal. The project EIR and ORCC Specific Plan proposal itself will be separately presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation in the future. Given the wide -sweeping and programmatic nature of the EIR, all topics to potentially be evaluated under CEQA were analyzed. While a robust discussion is provided in the EIR, the following table provides a quick summary of impacts for each topical area. Table ES -1: Summary of Impact for Each Resource Resource Level of Significance Aesthetics Less Than Significant Irnpact Agricultural and Forestry Resources No Impact Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Impact Biological Resou roes Less Than Significant Impact with Miligation Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Energy Less Than Significant Impact Geology and Sods Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5i9ndicant and Unavoidable Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Impact Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Irnpact with Miligation Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Impact Mineral Resources No Impact Noise Less Than Significant Impact vilh Mitigation Papulation and Housing Less Than Significant Impact Public Services Significant and Unavoidable Impact Recreation I Significant and Unavoidable Impact Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Impact Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact wilh Mitigation Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Irnpact vilh Mitigation Wildfire No Impact The draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are separately included as Attachment R and will be Exhibit "B" to Attachment A, CC Resolution 7705. All required mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is separately included as Attachment S and will be included as Exhibit "C" of Attachment No. A, CC Resolution 7705. The Draft EIR was released for a 45 -day public comment and review period from May 9, 2025 through June 23, 2025. Staff received 17 comments on the Draft EIR, including three comments from public agencies and 14 comments from members of the public. Stantec worked with City staff to prepare written responses to the comments entitled "Response to Comments" in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. The Response to Comments along with the received comments constitute part of the Final EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15132. The Final EIR (Attachment Q) will be included as Exhibit "A" of Attachment A, CC Resolution 7705. The comments received did not require any corrections to the Draft EIR, or the addition of any new information to the Draft EIR. RECENT CEQA REFORM Since the release of the DEIR, the State enacted CEQA reform (SB 131 and AB 130) that creates a statutory exemption for rezonings adopted to implement a Housing Element that has been found in substantial compliance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This means the rezoning actions identified in the Housing Element are no longer legally required to undergo CEQA review. However, the Housing Element itself remains subject to CEQA because it includes adoption of a General Plan element. Although rezoning actions are now exempt, the City has chosen to complete the EIR process to provide a full, transparent disclosure of potential environmental impacts. This ensures decision -makers and the community are fully informed and that mitigation measures are identified to the greatest extent feasible. On September 17, 2025, the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) held a public meeting in which they were briefed on the aforementioned CEQA reform, and given the opportunity to discuss and comment on the Draft EIR. Several of the Board members' questions revolved around whether future development projects within the rezoned areas would be subject to further CEQA review, with special concern regarding the ORCC Project. Staff explained that the ORCC Project is a part of the Housing Element update only in respect to how many housing units that Project could potentially add for the City to meet its RHNA numbers, and how meeting the RHNA numbers could impact the City. However, as noted above, the ORCC Project and its related development are undergoing review by the City through separate track that includes a Project -level EIR based on the proposed creation of a new Specific Plan district as well as the development of several non-residential components such as a hotel, improvements to the club house and driving range, and construction of a new parking structure and medical office. As such, preparation of the draft EIR for the ORCC Project is ongoing and a proposed DEIR will be presented to EQCB, the Planning Commission, and City Council at a later date. Regarding potential impacts that cannot be mitigated, Staff explained that the State has declared there is a housing crisis in which cities are mandated to increase the capacity for more housing being built, as such the City Council may consider certification of the EIR based on adoption of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration that increasing the capacity for increased housing stock provides a benefit that outweighs the aforementioned significant and avoidable impacts. The EQCB had no further comments or questions. As noted above, on October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR together with the draft Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and voted 3-1 (Commissioner Campbell voting No) adopting Resolution No. 25-08, recommending that the City Council Certify the EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In summary, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. Based on the analyses provided in the Final EIR. It is recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, and further find that while a full build out of the project without consideration of removal or replacement of existing development would potentially have a significant impact on the environment, there are overriding considerations to consider given the programmatic nature of this document and the mandated planning exercise to adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element and related and mandatory zoning amendments required under state law, and that, the project's benefits and the City's retention of local development and land use control outweigh the potential impacts. With regards to the adoption of Resolution 7707 to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination (Attachment F), there is no environmental impact related to this item. Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolutions and ordinances and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: Adoption of the Housing Element and the Zoning Implementation measures were identified as a Council priority. ALUC review of the Housing Element along with the amendments to the Zoning Code and the Main Street Specific Plan are a part of the overall update process. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7705 Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act for the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update, and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan; and, 3. Adopt Resolution 7706 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; and, 4. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1721 amending Title 11 (Zoning Code) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to establish the Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone and related development standards (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 5. Introduce, waive full reading, and read by title only Ordinance 1722 amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 6. Introduce, waive full reading and read by title only Ordinance 1723 amending the Main Street Specific Plan to allow residential uses subject to limitations (Housing Element Implementation Program); and, 7. Adopt Resolution 7707 Finding that: a. The Seal Beach General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. b. The related Amendments to Title 11 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Zoning Code and Zoning Map) are Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Zoning Code Amendment are Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. c. The related Amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the Main Street Specific Plan Amendment is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: S� Tem Pari, Gai go -y Shaun Temple, Interim Community Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. City Council Resolution 7705 Certifying the EIR and adopting Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. B. City Council Resolution 7706 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. C. Ordinance 1721 Amending Title 11 (Zoning Code) D. Ordinance 1722 Amendment to Zone Map E. Ordinance 1723 Amending Main Street Specific Plan F. City Council Resolution 7707 Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Inconsistency Determination G. HCD Comments and Reponses (Exhibit "B" to Attachment B, CC Resolution 7706 H. Planning Commisson Resolution 25-08, recommending certification of EIR and recommending approval of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideratons and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I. Planning Commission Resolution 25-09 recommening approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan J. ALUC Recording Secretary Letter dated August 11, 2025 regarding ALUC Inconsistency Determination K. ALUC Chairperson Response Letter dated October 8, 2025 L. DOT/Division of Aeronautics Response Letter dated October 9, 2025 M. Zoning Code Amendment (Exhibit "A" to Attachment C, Ordinance 1721 N. Zoning Map Amendment (Exhibit "A" to Attachment D, Ordinance 1722 O. Main Street Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit "A" to Attachment E, Ordinance 1723) P. Housing Element Update (Exhibit "A" to Attachment B, CC Resolution 7706 Q. Final Environmental Impact Report, including Initial Study, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments, and Responses to Comments, and Appendices A through G (Exhibit "A" to Attachment A, Resolution 7705 R. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "B" to Attachment A, Resolution 7705) S. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "C" to Attachment A, Resolution 7705) RESOLUTION 7705 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; AND ZONING CODE UPDATE INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, ZONING MAP; AND THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT, TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110425) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND. A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Seal Beach that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6t" planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 period. B. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City's housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of these needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update. C. The City' s share of the regional housing need, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was established at 1,243 units in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan prepared and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in March 2021. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the Housing Element. 1 D. State law requires the Housing Element to identify adequate sites to accommodate the City's RHNA for all income categories, and the Housing Element Update identifies sites that can accommodate housing exceeding the City's RHNA. E. Following an extensive public review and comment period beginning in 2021, and consultation with HCD, review by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos, respectively, and a public hearing held before the Seal Beach Planning Commission, on February 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and based upon findings and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. F. On February 9, 2022, the adopted Housing Element was transmitted to HCD pursuant to State law. G. On April 18, 2022, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the Housing Element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD's November 19, 2021, letter, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. H. On August 31, 2023, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD's letter. I. On September 27, 2023, a Town Hall meeting was held in Leisure World, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element along with a questions and answers session. J. On October 17, 2023, a community workshop was held to receive community feedback on the zoning amendments and objective design standards for the new mixed use zone K. On October 30, 2023, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but also notifying the City that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. L. On December 6, 2023, the Environmental Quality Control Board hosted a Scoping Meeting for the EIR of the Housing Element and rezone program. M. On April 19, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to the HCD's letter. N. On June 18, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but also advising the City that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. K O. On August 27, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD a revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD's letter. P. On October 17, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but further notified the City that the Housing Element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed the rezoning and adopted the Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone and other related actions. Q. The draft Housing Element dated August 2024 has been posted on the City's website for public review, since October 2024. R. On April 30, 2025, the City received a written letter from HCD inquiring about the status of the City's Housing Element update. S. On May 19, 2025, the City provided a response letter explaining that in addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Housing Element to HCD, the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts as required by HCD and the required evaluation of the environmental impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement the Zoning Code update. The letter also provided an estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezoning concurrently with the adoption of the Housing Element. T. On June 25, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a special meeting to solicit comments regarding the content of the Draft EIR. U. On September 17, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a meeting for a discussion on the Final EIR. V. To effectuate the Housing Element, by implementing zoning revisions that will accommodate the capacity for the housing as proposed in the Housing Element Update to meet the City's RHNA obligation, City staff prepared amendments to the Zoning Code including the Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan. W. The City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. X. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" attached hereto), and the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; and following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-08, on a 3-1 vote, recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and further adopted Planning Commission Resolution 25-09, on a 3-1 vote, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and 9 the Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Y. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" attached hereto), and the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Z. Notice of this public hearing was provided as required by law. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. AA. The revised Draft Housing Element Update dated August 2024 has been available online for public review beginning October 2024 at: https://www. seal beachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Housing-Element-Update BB. In accordance with Section 65585 of the Government Code, the City Council has reviewed HCD' s comments and the revised Draft Housing Element and finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element has been revised to address each of the findings made by HCD. The City Council further finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised, will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, identifies adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Needs Housing Assessment on sites that have been previously identified for development, and substantially complies with the requirements of State law. CC. The documents, staff report, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, 90740. Section 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. 2021-2029 Housina Element Uodate. 1) In compliance with State law, the City initiated this General Plan Amendment to update and revise the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) planning period, to replace the 2021-2029 Housing Element previously adopted on February 28, 2022. 2) The City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element includes updated data in compliance with State Housing laws and comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and a variety of programs and strategies to address Citywide housing needs and E priorities. The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update contains goals, policies, and programs aimed at addressing the City's housing development, preservation, and rehabilitation needs, including accommodating the City's RHNA of 1,243 housing units by 2029, encouraging housing to serve lower income and special needs households, increase access to affordable and special needs housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The proposed project does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development, but rather includes goals and policies to facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and proposed uses identified in the General Plan and as mandated to be allowed under State law. B. Zonina Code Amendment and Zonina MaD Amendment. 1) The City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) Zone as stipulated in Program 1 a of the Housing Element to provide adequate sites for housing through updates to the Zoning Code, and Program 1 b of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at a maximum density of 46 units to an acre and a minimum density of 40 units to an acre, in order to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update. 2) The proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Code establishes the new MC/RHD Zoning designation along with related development standards in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element. 3) The City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update also requires an amendment to the City's Zoning Map, to change the zoning designation of the following properties to MC/RHD and High Density Residential (RHD - 33): • Accurate Storge Site: APN 095-791-18 at 1011, from Residential High Density (RHD -20) to MC/RHD. • The Shops at RossmoorAPNs: APNs 086-492-56, 086-492-80, 086- 492-87, 086-492-90, 086-492-92, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD • Old Ranch Town Center: APNs 130-861-15, 130-861-16, 130-861-17, 130-861-18, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD. • Seal Beach Plaza: APNs 095-641-44, 095-641-55, 095-641-57, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD. • Seal Beach Center: APNs: APNs 043-260-02, 043-260-05, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD • 99 Marina Drive, Seal Beach: APN 199-011-01, from Oil Extraction (OE) to Residential High Density (RHD -33). 5 4) Per State law, the City must approve the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map Amendments concurrently with the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. C. Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). 1) The City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the MSSP, as stipulated in Program 1 r of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at select locations and on the second floor or above within the MSSP area, in order for the City to meet its RHNA allocation and requirements outlined in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. . Section 4. Environmental Review. Based on the record of the proceedings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEGA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 1500 et seq.), the City of Seal Beach (the "City") is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers. B. The City, as lead agency, determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project. C. The City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on November 16, 2023 and circulated the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, special districts, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties; as was filed with the Orange County Clerk and made available at the Seal Beach libraries and Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department and on the City's website for 30 -day public review. D. A public scoping meeting was held on December 6, 2023, to solicit input from interested agencies and the public at Seal Beach Council Chamber at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach. E. The City received oral comments at the scoping meeting and also received several written comment letters during the public review period which were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. F. On May 9, 2025, the City initiated the 45 -day public review period of the Draft EIR by filing a Notice of Availability with the State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, publishing the Notice in the Sun Newspaper a newspaper of general circulation, and releasing the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2023110425) for public review and comment to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, special districts, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties; as was filed with the Orange County Clerk and made available at the Seal Beach libraries and Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department and on the City's website. G. During the 45 -day review period, the City received 17 comments and prepared responses to those comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, or required any changes to the Draft EIR. H. In accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005, on June 25, 2025, a duly noticed public meeting was conducted by the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) during the public comment period on the proposed Draft EIR. The EQCB received public comments on the Draft EIR, reviewed and provided comments on the Draft EIR, and forwarded those public comments and the EQCB's comments to the City staff to be incorporated into the proposed Draft EIR and to be included in the record to be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Planning Commission's and City Council's consideration of the proposed Final EIR and Project, in accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005(F). I. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR dated May 9, 2025, Appendices A through G thereto; the Comments submitted by members of the public and agencies, and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR (collectively "Exhibit A", attached hereto), the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") (attached hereto as Exhibit "C") for the Project. J. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Final EIR, and the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and Zoning Code, the Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan Updates and recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Housing Element Update, Zoning Code Amendments, Zoning Map Amendment and MSSP amendment. K. The Final EIR, including but not limited to, the responses to comments, was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to certification of the Final EIR in compliance with CEQA Section 21092.5(a). L. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Final EIR, and the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and Zoning Code, the Zoning Map and MSSP Amendments. At the public hearing, City staff presented its report and interested persons presented evidence, both written and oral, regarding the Final EIR and proposed Project. Following receipt of all written and oral testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing. K. The City Council has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. The Final EIR and all other documents, reports and materials, which constitute the record of proceedings, is on file and available for public examination during 7 normal business hours at Seal Beach City Hall, Planning Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, during regular business hours, and is posted on the City's website at: http://www.seaIbeachca.gov/. The custodian of the records is the Director of Community Development. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project subject to CEQA, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in a final environmental impact report accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, a) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, b) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. c) Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain some or all or the main objectives of the proposed project while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects that would occur. 2) These required findings for the Final EIR are set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. a) Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impactor less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures are described in Exhibit "B", Section V.A. b) Environmental impacts, or specific aspects of those impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels after mitigation, are discussed in Exhibit "B", Section V.B. c) Environmental impacts that remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, as discussed in Exhibit "B", Section V.C. rn 3) Alternatives to the Project that might reduce significant environmental impacts, and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives, are discussed in Exhibit "B", Section VI. 4) The Final EIR identified mitigation measures that will mitigate impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geological and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems to a level of insignificance, and incorporated those mitigation measures into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (or MMRP), in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15091(d). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, which are set out on Exhibit "C", attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. 5) The City Council has independently considered the record of proceedings before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 6) Economic, planning, social and state mandated housing laws benefits of the Project against the Project's unavoidable adverse impacts outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts supported by the Findings of Fact with the Statement of Overriding Consideration. Section 5. Findings. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, the City Council find as follows: A. The above recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 4, inclusive, are true and correct. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. C. The Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been completed in compliance with CEQA and fully analyze and disclose the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference. Section 6. Adoption. Based upon the foregoing findings and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby: 9 A. Certifies the Final EIR attached as Exhibit A", adopts the Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Consideration attached as Exhibit "B"; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit "C". B. Directs City staff to implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "C." C. Directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7705 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. W] Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit "A": Final Environmental Impact Report (including Initial Study, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments, and Responses to Comments) Exhibit "B": Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit "C": Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 RESOLUTION 7706 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (6TH CYCLE) OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND. The City of Seal Beach ("City") has initiated a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 Planning Period (Sixth Cycle), and to amend the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan (collectively the "Project") to ensure consistency with and implement the Housing Element Update, in order to fulfill State housing law. The City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Seal Beach that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6t" planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 period. B. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City's housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of these needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update. C. The City' s share of the regional housing need, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was established at 1,243 units in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan prepared and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in March 2021. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the Housing Element; D. State law requires the Housing Element to identify adequate sites to accommodate the City's RHNA for all income categories, and the Housing Element Update identifies sites that can accommodate housing exceeding the City's RHNA; 1 E. In compliance with State law, the City initiated this General Plan Amendment to update and revise the Housing Element of the General Plan for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 planning period. F. On March 8, 2021 the Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint meeting to consider housing issues affecting the community and State requirements regarding the Housing Element, and received public oral and written comments. G. Between March 2021 and October 2021, the City circulated a Housing Element community online survey to the public, in order to obtain input from community members. H. On April 5 and April 27, 2021 the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee held public meetings to discuss Housing Element policy options and the sites inventory. I. On September 9, 2021, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65352 through 65352.5 relating to tribal notification requirements, the City mailed a project description to all local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No requests for consultation or comments were received by the City during the requisite 90 -day response period for this notification. J. On September 20, 2021 the Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission conducted a second joint meeting to review the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and received public oral and written comments. K. On September 21, 2021 the City submitted the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review pursuant to Section 65585(b) of the California Government Code. L. On November 19, 2021 HCD provided written comments on the Draft Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update pursuant to Section 65585 of the Government Code. M. On January 6, 2022, the City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. N. On January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and adopted a resolution recommending its approval to the City Council, subject to certain minor changes. O. On January 19, 2022, and January 20, 2022, the City circulated a copy of the recommended draft Housing Element to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos, respectively. P. On February 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and based upon findings 0a and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Q. On February 9, 2022, the adopted Housing Element was transmitted to HCD pursuant to State law. R. On February 17, 2022, the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC) held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and found it inconsistent with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. S. On April 8, 2022, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the Housing Element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD's November 19, 2021, letter, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. T. On August 29, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting to overrule ALUC's determination of inconsistency, and at that time adopted Resolution 7324 overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination. U. On August 31, 2023, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD's letter. V. On September 27, 2023, a Town Hall meeting was held in Leisure World, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element along with a questions and answers session. W. On October 17, 2023, a community workshop was held to receive community feedback on the Zoning Code amendments and objective design standards for the new mixed use zone. X. On October 30, 2023, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. Y. On December 6, 2023, the Environmental Quality Control Board hosted a Scoping Meeting for the EIR of the Housing Element and rezone program. Z. On April 19, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD the revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD's letter. AA. On June 18, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but that additional revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. BB. On August 27, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD a revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD's letter. 9 CC. On October 17, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but also finding that the Housing Element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed the rezoning and adopted the Mixed Commercial/Residential High -Density Zone and other related actions. DD. In October 2024, the draft Housing Element dated August 2024 was posted on the City's website for public review. EE. On April 30, 2025, the City received a written letter from HCD inquiring about the status of the City's Housing Element update. FF. On May 19, 2025, the City provided a response letter explaining that in addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Housing Element to HCD, the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts as required by HCD and the required evaluation of the environmental impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement the Zoning Code update. The letter also provided an estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezoning concurrently with the adoption of the Housing Element. GG. On June 25, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a Special Meeting to solicit comments regarding the content of the Draft EIR. HH. On August 7, 2025, the ALUC held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and Rezoning Program and found it inconsistent the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider overruling the ALUC determination. II. On September 17, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board met to present the Final EIR and discuss CEQA reform related to housing and the Housing Element. JJ. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update). Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-08, on a 3-1 vote, recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and further adopted Planning Commission Resolution 25-09, on a 3-1 vote, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and the Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update. KK. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding CI Considerations, and regarding the 2021 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and the Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update). LL. To effectuate the Housing Element, by implementing zoning revisions that will accommodate the capacity for the housing as proposed in the Housing Element Update to meet the City's RHNA obligation, City staff prepared amendments to the Zoning Code, including the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). MM. The City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. The revisions and responses to HCD' s comments are summarized in Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. NN. Notice of this public hearing was provided as required by law. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. 00. The revised Draft Housing Element Update dated August 2024 has been available online at https://www.seaIbeachca.gov/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-Development/Housing-Element-Update for public review beginning October 19, 2024. PP. In accordance with Section 65585 of the Government Code, the City Council has reviewed HCD' s comments and the revised Draft Housing Element and finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element has been revised to address each of the findings made by HCD. The City Council further finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised, will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, identifies adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Needs Housing Assessment on sites that have been previously identified for development, and substantially complies with the requirements of State law. QQ. The custodian of records for all documents, staff report, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is the City Clerk. The administrative record is on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, 90740, and is posted on the City's website at- http://www.seaIbeachca.gov/. Section 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element Update. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. Based on the record of the 5 proceedings, the City Council adopted Resolution 7705 certifying the Final EIR and adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby further finds as follows: A. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update and amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) (the Project), along with Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, pursuant to CEQA. B. Prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council has carried out its independent review of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as certified and adopted by Resolution 7705, and further has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. Section 3. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Housing Element Update for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. Based on the record of the proceedings, and the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, and in City Council Resolution 7705, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. Housing Element Update (2021-2029 Planning Cycle). 1) The City's 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element. as updated, and as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.D, below, will amend the General Plan by replacing the 2021-2029 Housing Element previously adopted on February 28, 2022 with the 2021-2029 Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. 2) The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update contains goals, policies, and programs aimed at addressing the City's housing development, preservation, and rehabilitation needs, including accommodating the City's RHNA of 1,243 housing units by 2029, encouraging housing to serve lower income and special needs households, increase access to affordable and special needs housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The proposed project does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development, but rather includes goals and policies to facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and proposed uses identified in the General Plan and as mandated to be allowed under State law. 3) Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Statement of Overriding Considerations and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in support adoption of the Housing Element. 4) The proposed Housing Element is in conformance with the environmental goals and policies adopted by the City. 5) The proposed Housing Element is consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan, and is necessary to carry out General Plan goals and policies that are set forth in the Land Use Element and other Elements of the General Plan, and will guide and direct orderly residential development in the City and sets forth goals, policies and programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing for all economic segments of the community and housing for persons with special needs. 6) The proposed Housing Element will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare in that it will provide for the orderly residential development in the City that complies with the requirements of State law. Section 5. Findings. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, and the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council find as follows: A. The above recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 4, inclusive, are true and correct. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element and Zoning Code, Zoning Map and MSSP Updates. C. Prior to taking action on this project, the City Council has carried out its independent review of the certified Final EIR and the approved Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been completed in compliance with CEQA and fully analyze and disclose the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 6. Adoption. Based upon the foregoing findings and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby A. Approves the 2021-2029 Housing Element, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", and 7 B. Authorizes and directs the City Manager and Community Development Director to make any technical, clerical and other non -substantive changes or clarifications to the Housing Element made by the Community Development Director as may to respond to comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development on the adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7706 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk r� Attachments: Exhibit "A": Housing Element Update Exhibit "B": HCD Comments and Responses ORDINANCE 1721 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING TITLE 11 (ZONING CODE) OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY ZONE AND TO MAKE RELATED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (MC/RHD) ZONE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Ordinance creates the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) Zone and makes related amendments to Title 11 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to ensure compliance with State Housing Law, including Government Code §§65580-65589.11, and to implement the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element. Section 2. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2023110425). City Council Resolution 7705 certified the FEIR and adopted the MMRP, Findings of Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations. This Ordinance incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Resolution 7705, including the FEIR, as if fully set forth herein, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to adopting this Ordinance. Section 3. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Code text amendments as set forth in this Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-08, recommending approval of these Zoning Code amendments by the City Council. Section 4. On October 27, 2025, the City Council considered this Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the above Zoning Code text amendments are consistent with the Seal Beach General Plan, as amended by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and are necessary to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,243 units. Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts the Zone Code amendments as shown in Exhibit "A" (Amended Title 11) of this Ordinance, incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 27th day of October 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach this day of , 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: 0[074•�9TOWMILVA Cai11:T1 ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: F-AlaI*ISI Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk P� Lisa Landau, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1721 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the day of 2025, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit "A": Zone Code Amendment 3 ORDINANCE 1722 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION REZONING PROGRAM) TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO IMPLEMENT THE 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Ordinance amends the Official City Zoning Map to designate specified areas of the City as Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) to ensure compliance with State Housing Law, including Government Code §§65580- 65589.11, and to implement the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element. Section 2. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines), the City prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCH #2023110425), circulated the Draft EIR and related documents for public and agency review. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed EIR and related documents and thereafter adopted Resolution No. 25-08 recommending certification of the FEIR and approval of the related documents. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly -noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution 7705 certifying the FEIR and adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council carried out its independent review of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as adopted by Resolution 7705, and further has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. Section 3. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission considered this Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-09, recommending approval of this Ordinance by the City Council. Section 4. On October 27, 2025, the City Council considered this Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. Section 5. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as the Accurate Storage Site (APN 095-791-18) to MC/RHD (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density). Section 6. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as The Shops at Rossmoor (APNs 086-492-56, 086-492-80, 086-492-87, 086-492-90, 086-492-92) to MC/RHD. Section 7. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as Old Ranch Town Center (APNs 130-861-15, 130-861-16, 130-861-17, 130-861-18) to MC/RHD. Section 8. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as Seal Beach Plaza (APNs 095-641-44, 095-641-55, 095- 641-57) to MC/RHD. Section 9. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as Seal Beach Center (APNs 043-260-02, 043-260-05) to MC/RHD. Section 10. The Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to change the property known as 99 Marina Drive (APN 199-011-01) to RHD -33. Section 11. The City Council finds that the above zoning changes as set forth in Sections 5 through 11 are consistent with the Seal Beach General Plan, as amended by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and are necessary to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,243 units to fulfill state housing law. Section 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 13. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law. Section 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 27th day of October 2025. 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on this _ day of 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Harper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1722 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October, 2025, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the —day of 2025, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836. Attachments: Exhibit "A": Zone Map Amendment 3 ORDINANCE 1723 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES TO IMPLEMENT THE 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Ordinance allows residential uses in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) area, except on the first floor facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue, to ensure compliance with State Housing Law, including Government Code §§65580-65589.11, and to implement the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element. Section 2. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines the City prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCH #2023110425), circulated the Draft EIR and related documents for public and agency review. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed EIR and related documents, and thereafter adopted Resolution No. 25-08 recommending certification of the FEIR and approval of the related documents. On October 27, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly -noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution 7705 certifying the FEIR and adopting the Findings of Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council carried out its independent review of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as adopted by Resolution 7705, and further has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. Section 3. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission considered this Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map of the City at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-08, recommending approval of this Ordinance by the City Council. Section 4. On October 27, 2025, the City Council considered this Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or against this matter. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the above Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Seal Beach General Plan, as amended by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and are necessary to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,243 units. Section 6. The City Council hereby amends the Main Street Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit "A" (Amended Main Street Specific Plan). Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 271h day of October 2025. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on this _ day of 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: 2 Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1723 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October, 2025, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the _day of 2025, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit "A": Amended Main Street Specific Plan 3 RESOLUTION 7707 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL FINDING THE GENERAL PLAN 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT (6TH CYCLE) UPDATE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS ACT AND OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2017 JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Seal Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in this Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California. It shall also have the power to exercise any and all rights, powers and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted, or prescribed by any law of the State, by this Charter, or the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power, duty, or procedure shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation or restriction upon, this general grant of power; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (Housing Element Law) requires that every city prepare and periodically update the housing element of the general plan; every city is mandated to include statutory requirements in the housing element, and every city is required to submit a draft of its housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment as to whether the City's draft 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project) substantially complies with Housing Element Law; and, WHEREAS, the City worked with the community, Planning Commission, City Council, and its consultants to prepare the Project as required by the Housing Element Law); and, WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") allocation imposed on the City by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), of 1,243 units, is a substantial increase in the number of affordable housing opportunities required in comparison to the 5th Cycle RHNA allocation of only two units, and as a result required the City to identify all available sites Citywide as potential housing opportunities, including some in proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB), which is subject to the 2017 Joint Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC"); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City referred the Project to the ALUC for advisory review for its consistency with the AELUP; and, WHEREAS, on August 7, 2025, the ALUC by unanimous (5-0) vote, determined that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP due to noise, safety, and general land use compatibility of potential housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element; and, 1 WHEREAS, as the final review authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two- thirds vote, if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 regarding the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action on a proposal to overrule the ALUC inconsistency finding, the City must provide the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (the "State Division of Aeronautics") with notice of the City's intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination along with specific findings at least 45 days prior to the City's action to overrule the ALUC; and, WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics shall respond to the notification of the findings of proposed override within 30 days of receiving the proposed resolution and findings; and, WHEREAS, in the event the ALUC or State Division of Aeronautics' comments are not available within this timeframe, the City may act without them; and, WHEREAS, any comments by the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics are advisory to the City under state law; and the City Council shall include any comments from the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics in the final record of any final decision by the City Council to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on September 8, 2025, in the City Council Chambers located at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and the City Council adopted Resolution 7691 by unanimous vote of 5-0, to notify the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intent to overrule ALUC's inconsistency finding; and, WHEREAS, on September 10, 2025, the City sent a copy of Resolution 7691 via email and United States Postal Service to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics; and, WHEREAS, the City received comments in response to Resolution 7691 from the State Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC; and those comments are hereby incorporated by reference and the facts in support of the findings provided in Section 1 of this resolution adequately address both comment letters; and, WHEREAS, the documents and other materials constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Community Development Department of the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740; and, 0a WHEREAS, on October 27, 2025, a public hearing was held by the City Council. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with CPUC Section 21676(b) and the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The City Council finds that the General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) Update ("Project") is consistent with the purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and the AELUP of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Facts in Suaaort 1. The Project is consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP. The AELUP guides the orderly development of Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and the surrounding area through implementation of the standards in AELUP Section 2 (Planning Guidelines) and Section 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these standards is intended to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. AELUP Section 2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards. The Project includes the identification of 2 opportunity sites within the 60 dB CNEL contour for JFTB. No sites are within the 65 dB CNEL. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4, respectively, of the AELUP define the noise exposure in the 60- 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as "Moderate Noise Impact" and in the 65-70 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as "High Impact". Section 3, Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) of the AELUP identifies residential as "conditionally consistent" with the 60-65 dB CNEL noise contour. Residential uses are not outright prohibited in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or 2. AELUP Section 3.2.4 requires residential uses to be developed with advanced insulation systems to bring the sound after attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside. The City's General Plan Noise Element currently requires also requires interior sound attenuation of 45dB. 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) sets forth zones depicting which land uses are acceptable in the JFTB environs, and states that only an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) "A" located 9 within the boundaries of JFTB was justified. Further, there are not APZs identified beyond the Clear Zones for JFTB, therefore APZ "A" is designated as a Clear Zone. No opportunity sites are located within the Clear Zone. 3. The proposed Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the AELUP and will not result in incompatible land uses adjacent to JFTB. The standards and policies set forth in Sections 2 (Planning Guidelines) and 3 (Land Use Policies) of the AELUP were adopted to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. As set forth above, any development on the proposed housing opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in Sections 2 and 3. Much of the area surrounding the housing opportunity sites within the AELUP planning area is already developed with residential development, and the housing opportunity sites would constitute infill development in and around those existing uses. The previously developed residential areas include thousands of housing units located in the neighborhoods of College Park East, Leisure World, Rossmoor, and neighborhoods north of the Old Ranch Town Center in both Seal Beach and Los Alamitos. Consistent with the AELUP, any infill projects must comply with all applicable specific policies, and the housing opportunity sites do not violate the AELUP height restrictions, are consistent with the noise and safety policies, and are not within any identified APZs or CZs. Further, the Project does not constitute approval or commitment to development, but identifies potential future sites for housing, and compliance with the AELUP standards will be evaluated and demonstrated if and when development projects are proposed in the future following the subsequent comprehensive update of the General Plan. Section 3. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the noise standards, safety standards, and purposes and intent of the AELUP; and hereby overrules the ALUC's determination that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP. Section 4. The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Specifically, the resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it is limited to the City's proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination and does not commit the City to approve the Project. The Project will be independently reviewed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, 51 such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October, 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7707 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. 5 Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Exhibit "G" HCD Comments and Responses • HCD Comment Letter — November 2021 • HCD Comment Letter —April 2022 • HCD Letter of Inquiry — May 2023 • HCD Comment Letter — October 2023 • HCD Comment Letter — June 2024 • HCD Comment Letter — October 2024 • Seal Beach Response Letter — May 2025 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT Q o' 2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov April 8, 2022 Jill R. Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA, 90740 Dear Jill R. Ingram: RE: City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seal Beach's (City) housing element adopted February 7, 2022, and received for review on February 9, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on April 7, 2022, with Ms. Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director. The adopted housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD's November 19, 2021 review; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code), see enclosed Appendix. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), Program 1A (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing Through Updates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) to rezone 1,150 units to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government's housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Additionally, Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Page 2 pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b) (AB 215, Statutes of 2021), any subsequent draft revision, the local government must post the draft revisions on its website and email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previous requested notices related to local governments housing element at least seven days before resubmitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix C final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final 6.26.15.pdf. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Mashal Ayobi, of our staff, at Mashal.Ayobi(a-hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure APPENDIX CITY OF SEAL BEACH The following changes are necessary to bring the City's/County's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD's website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD's latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).) While the element included an updated evaluation of past programs, it did not provide a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness). Please see HCD's prior review. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2 ... shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement and Outreach: While the element was revised to incorporate some information on fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, it did not list local, regional, state agencies, and organizations active in the locality beyond the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC). Additionally, the element must describe the primary activities and capacity of fair housing entities or the city's capacity to take action such as providing dedicated resources. The element must also identify and discuss findings, lawsuits, or enforcement actions related to fair housing. Lastly, the element it must also describe the City's compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and include information on fair housing outreach capacity. For additional information, please see pages 28-30 on HCD's affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtml. City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 April 8, 2022 Goals, Actions, Milestones and Metrics: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Currently, the element identifies programs to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to facilitate any meaningful change nor address affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics and milestones as appropriate and must generally address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place - based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Additionally, given that most of the City is considered a high resource community, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing. 2. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Stock Condition: While the element was revised to state that "very few homes are in need of any significant repair, based on staff observations", it still does not address this finding. As stated in HCD's prior review, the element must estimate the number of housing units in need of major rehabilitation or replacement during the planning period. The analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers/property managers, including nonprofit housing developers or organizations. 3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,243 housing units, of which 459 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on rezoning nonvacant sites. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element must include a complete analysis: Electronic Sites Inventory: While the element submitted an electronic sites inventory, the inventory did not include the required information. For example, several sites do not include affordability levels. Additionally, under columns "O" and "P," the minimum and maximum allowable densities are listed as "N/A." Lastly, the element states that several of these sites are made up of individual parcels that will be lot consolidated. The sites inventory should use the "optional information" column to indicate which sites will be consolidated. City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 April 8, 2022 Lot Consolidation: The revised element now includes a parcel specific inventory which shows several sites with small parcels that would require consolidation. The element must demonstrate the potential for lot consolidation by providing analysis describing the City's role or track record in facilitating small -lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for redevelopment, recent trends of lot consolidation, and information on the owners of each aggregated site. Additionally, the analysis should discuss whether the City will be rezoning each individual parcel identified in the sites inventory or rezoning sites after lot consolidation. Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to adjust capacity assumptions based on the net acreage of a site that will be developed as residential, the element still must provide support for these assumptions. As stated in HCD's prior review, the estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land -use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. Additionally, the element did not address HCD's prior review regarding demonstrating the likelihood of residential in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. As stated in HCD's prior review, the element must account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential uses. The element should include analysis based on factors such as development trends, performance standards or other relevant factors. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to include a list of factors that were considered when identifying redevelopment potential on nonvacant sites including existing uses, improvement -land value (ILV) of less than 1.0 and property owner interest, the analysis should describe why and how these factors demonstrate that these sites are suitable for development. For example, the element listed regional examples in figure B-1. To better relate these examples to the factors identified, the element could include information on the site characteristics of each regional project such as ILV and existing uses. Additionally, the element should clearly indicate which factors were considered on a site -by -site basis. For example, the element provides an individual analysis of each site but does not reference each factor for each site. The element should clearly describe the methodology for identifying sites. While the revised element now includes a site -by -site analysis, there were several discrepancies between the analysis and the electronic sites inventory. • 1011 Seal Beach—The element lists this site in both the current inventory and as a candidate site for rezoning. The element should either describe why this site has been identified as both inventories or should remove this site from one of the inventories. City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 April 8, 2022 • Old Ranch Town Center—The element identified this site as a candidate site for rezoning to accommodate a portion of the City's lower-income shortfall. The analysis states that the owner is considering a proposal for 120 units; however did not indicate if that proposal including affordable units as the inventory is assuming. Additionally, the element lists the minimum and maximum densities as "N/A." The element must state the proposed allowable densities for the site. HCD also received public comment that this site is across the street from active air base runaways. The element should discuss whether any airport noise ordinance or other restriction is applicable to this site or would affect its development potential. Lastly, the analysis stated that the site is made up of several parcels that equate to 26 acres. However, the inventory includes only ten parcels equating to 22 acres. • Leisure World—The element identified redeveloping a portion of this site for 150 units; however provided no analysis on why this site is likely to redevelop. • Seal Beach Plaza—The analysis stated that this is a seven acre site where 2.5 acres will redevelop into residential. However, the sites inventory does not contain any sites or parcels that equate to seven acres. • Sunset Aquatic Marina—The analysis states that a portion of this site is a shipyard for boats; however the inventory lists this site as a County Regional Park. • 99 Marina Drive—The analysis states that the existing uses on this site consist of a handball court; however the inventory lists this site's existing uses as an abandoned oil separation facility. In addition, for your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. While the resolution of adoption includes the appropriate findings, any changes to the analysis should be reflected in future re -adoption of the element. Military Sites: The element identified a Navy owned site titled the Naval Weapons Station (parcel number 043-150-23) to accommodate 150 units of the City's RHNA. The element indicated that the Navy has solicited information from interested developers and is generally expecting a mixed-use project where development will commence in 2024. Additionally, the element stated that the City does not have land use authority over the site (IV -41). The element must have additional analysis about the site including what agency (City or military) will be facilitating zoning and permitting, which agency has control over the site, whether the site is in the City's limits, and a contingency plan if the Navy chooses to not develop the site for housing. Lastly, the element should include a program committing to coordinating with the Navy to encourage and facilitate development on this site. Availability of Infrastructure: While the revised element stated that all necessary infrastructure is in place, the element must describe sufficient water, sewer, and infrastructure capacity to meet the RHNA. City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 April 8, 2022 4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land -Use Controls: The element was not revised to address this finding. Please see HCD's prior review. Local Processing and Permit Procedures information regarding conventional uses, Please see HCD's prior review. While the revised element included some the element did not address this finding. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: Residential Care Facilities of Seven or More Persons: HCD's prior review stated that it is unclear how and where the city permits residential care facilities for seven or more. The element was revised to state that due to the "potential for neighborhood impacts" these uses are directed to nonresidential districts and subject to findings related to compatibility with surrounding neighborhood uses. Excluding these uses from residential zones and/or subjecting these uses to subjective findings is generally considered a constraint and the element should include programs committing to approval of these uses with objectivity and certainty. Residential Care Facilities of Six or Fewer. While the element was revised to clarify that residential care facilities of 6 or fewer are allowed in all residential zones and subject to the same restrictions as other residential uses, the element indicated that group homes of six of fewer are only permitted in the RHD district and subject to a minor use permit. Excluding group homes from residential zones and subjecting them to a different process from similar residential uses is a constraint. The element should analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty. Reasonable Accommodation: The revised element states that reasonable accommodation requests are subject to notice, review, and approval by planning commission and similar findings that are prescribed for a conditional use permit (IV -19). Additionally, the City's conditional use permit findings includes impacts City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 April 8, 2022 on surrounding uses (pg. IV -29). Granting a reasonable accommodation is a unique exception process from a conditional use permit. Given its importance in addressing barriers to housing for persons with disabilities, the element should include a program committing to removing constraints, namely the "potential impact on surrounding uses" approval finding._See sample RA ordinance. 5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Time: While the element was revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, it must still analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need. C. Housing Programs Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) Program 28 (Affordable Housing Resources): While the element added additional actions, it did not include information on implementation or timeline. Specifically, while the revised program commits to "exploring opportunities for affordable housing development when development opportunities arise, the element should commit to proactively outreaching with developers on an annual basis. 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional housing need City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6 April 8, 2022 for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single -room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B4 and B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As stated in HCD's prior review and noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must generally address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place -based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. In addition, Program 5A should also describe how all the City's housing programs comply with and further the requirements and goals of Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b). 5. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 7 April 8, 2022 Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate -income households. For purposes of this paragraph, "accessory dwelling units" has the same meaning as "accessory dwelling unit" as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) Program 1 H (Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs)): While the element now states that the City will consider revisions to the existing ADU ordinance, as stated in HCD's prior review, the current ADU ordinance is not consistent with state law. As a result, the element should firmly commit to updating the ordinance to be complaint with state law. Additionally, as stated in HCD's prior review, the element must include a program that incentivizes or promotes ADU development for lower and moderate -income households. While the element included a program updating the ADU ordinance, the City program should commit to actions that incentivize or promote ADU development beyond updating the City's website. This can take the form of flexible zoning requirements, development standards, or processing and fee incentives that facilitate the creation of ADUs, such as reduced parking requirements, fee waivers and more. Other strategies could include developing information packets to market ADU construction, targeted advertising of ADU development opportunities or establishing an ADU specialist within the planning department. D. Quantified Objectives Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) The element was not revised to address this finding. Please see HCD's prior review. dated November 19, 2022. E. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c) (9).) While the element was revised to include two additional stakeholder organizations (C-3) and state that affordable housing developers were invited to participate, the element generally did not address HCD's prior finding. In addition, the element should describe outreach relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This outreach is particularly important to informing fair housing issues, contributing factors and appropriate goals and actions. Please see HCD's prior review. City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 8 April 8, 2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT Q o' 2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov June 18, 2024 Alexa Smittle, Director Community Development Department City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Alexa Smittle: RE: City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle (2021-2029) Subsequent Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seal Beach's (City) revised draft housing element update received for review on April 19, 2024. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The draft housing element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD's October 30, 2023 review; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq), as follows: 1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2 ... shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element was revised to include Program actions to address housing mobility enhancement, it must be further revised to include actions that provide new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, and place -based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. As stated in HCD's prior review, all program actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Alexa Smittle, Director Page 2 Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to state sites in the City's sites inventory are assumed to develop at a capacity of 80 percent of maximum density, the element does not fully address the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential uses on sites in the inventory in nonresidential zones. The element should analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to provide clearer examples of development surrounding the City in Table B-4 and discusses certain characteristics that these sites share with sites in the inventory on pg. B-12, the characteristics of these sites are not clearly linked to sites selection criteria on Page B-15, nor are they linked to specific sites in the City's inventory. In addition, the examples in Table B-4 for comparable residential/mixed-use redevelopment projects in neighboring cities should include all projects within a specific timeframe (e.g., last five years). The element should analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly. In addition, absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA). Please see HCD's prior review for additional information. Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD's housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory(a)-hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other Alexa Smittle, Director Page 3 exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element was revised to clarify that the City does not have an approval procedure for housing for agriculture employees and supportive housing. The element includes Program r (Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with State Law.); however, this program should be revised to provide a specific date as to when the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and 17021.6. In addition, the element includes Program 1 k (Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Transitional/Supportive Housing) to address supportive housing; however, this program should also be revised to clarify that the code amendment related to addressing emergency shelter requirements will also address requirements relating low barrier navigation centers and supportive housing. 4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Time: While the element states approval timelines for single-family and multi -family projects in Seal Beach are difficult to estimate because the City has not received any housing applications in last several years, the City should still provide an estimate on the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits based on the level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures. 5. Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c) (9).) Alexa Smittle, Director Page 4 The housing element was not revised to meet this requirement. As noted on the previous review the element must discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, and participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided. In addition, the element should describe when the element was made available to the public and summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re -adopted to comply with the above requirements. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed. As this year has passed and Program 1A (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing Through Updates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) has not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning have been completed. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government's website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government's housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. Alexa Smittle, Director Page 5 HCD appreciates the assistance the City's housing element team provided during the course of our review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at Reid. Miller(a)_hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov November 19, 2021 Alexa Smittle, Director Department of Community Development City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Alexa Smittle: RE: City of Seal Beach's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seal Beach's (City) draft housing element received for review on September 21, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on November 17, 2021 with you and Marco Cuevas, Assistant Planner. In addition, HCD considered comments from People for Housing Orange County; the Kennedy Commission' and Schelly Sustarsic of the Seal Beach City Council; District 4, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. As a reminder, the City's 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City's 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government's housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research at: http://oi)r.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix C final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final 6.26.15. pdf. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Mashal Ayobi, of our staff, at Mashal.Ayobi hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure APPENDIX CITY OF SEAL BEACH The following changes are necessary to bring the City's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD's website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD's latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).) The review requirement is one of the most important features of the element update. The review of past programs should analyze the City's accomplishments over the previous planning period. This information provides the basis for developing a more effective housing program. The element must evaluate the appropriateness of the goals, objectives, policies, and programs. While the element states if a program is to be continued in the 6th cycle housing element, it should also indicate if modifications are necessary to achieve better results in the new housing element cycle. The element must provide a narrative describing what has been learned based on the analysis or effectiveness of the previous element. In addition, as part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female -headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). For more information, See HCD's Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/petting-started/review- revise.shtml. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2 ... shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The element has some basic information and maps on racial demographics, poverty status, and TCAC opportunity areas. However, the element generally does not address this requirement. The element, among other things, must include outreach relevant to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), a full assessment of fair housing, identification, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 November 19, 2021 and actions sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity, as detailed below. For more information, please visit httl)s://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtml. 2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) While the element quantifies the existing housing needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households, it must still quantify projected ELI housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of very low-income households qualify as ELI households. 3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Conditions: The element identifies the age of the housing stock. However, it must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers/property managers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations. Overpayment by Tenure: While the element identifies the total number of overpaying households, it must quantify and analyze the number of overpaying households by tenure (i.e., renter and owner), including lower-income households. In addition, the element must identify and analyze median housing prices for rental units in addition to for -sale units. 4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 3,236 housing units, of which 1,293 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on underutilized sites. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element must include complete analyses: Parcel Listing: The element must list sites, including candidate sites for rezoning, by parcel number or unique reference and describe existing uses for any nonvacant sites with sufficient detail to facilitate an analysis of the potential for additional development. In addition, Table B-3, which shows candidate sites to rezone, must be revised to identify proposed general plan designation, zoning district and affordability levels. City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 November 19, 2021 Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD's housing element webpage at httl)s://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sites inventory(�hcd. ca. gov for technical assistance. Realistic Capacity: The element must include an estimate of the number of units that can be accommodated on each site in the inventory. The estimate may rely on established minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units for each site was determined. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land -use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element should describe the methodology used for calculating realistic capacity and should support for those assumptions. For sites zoned for nonresidential uses (e.g., commercial, and mixed-use zones), the element must describe how the estimated number of residential units for each site was determined. The estimate must also account for land -use controls such as allowing 100 percent nonresidential uses. To demonstrate the likelihood for residential development in nonresidential zones, the element could describe any performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential and any factors increasing the potential for residential development such as incentives for residential use, and residential development trends in the same nonresidential zoning districts. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an adequate methodology to demonstrate the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. For example, the element identifies the Leisure World Community, an established senior community, and several commercial sites, but it must also analyze whether the existing uses on these sites would impede residential development within the planning period. Specifically, the methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on nonvacant sites. In addition, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 November 19, 2021 substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether they are affordable to lower-income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lower-income households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section.65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary. Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity to accommodate the RHNA in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) The element should also demonstrate access (existing or planned) to infrastructure and utility for identified sites. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: • Emergency Shelters: While housing element law does allow a jurisdiction to limit the number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by a facility, standards must be designed to encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, an emergency shelter. The element must analyze the 25 -bed limit as a potential constraint for the development of emergency shelters and must amend its emergency shelter parking requirements to comply with AB 139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A)). • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): After a cursory review of the City's ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, height restrictions, requirement of setbacks for junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), restricting bedroom count, open space requirements, among others. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City's ADU ordinance to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD's ADU Guidebook, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml. 5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 November 19, 2021 required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to two-story height limits in the RHD -20 zone, flood zone heights, minimum unit sizes for studio and one -bedroom multifamily units and development standards for residential in commercial zones. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. Possible examples include, but are not limited to, whether 100 percent residential developments are allowed in mixed-use areas, 950 square foot minimum unit size requirements for one - bedroom units in the RHD -20 zone, parking standards for studio and one bedroom units and maximum lot coverage of less than 50 percent for multifamily housing. The element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element provides some general permit processing information, it must describe and analyze the City permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing). Specifically, the element must clarify what types of development fall under the definition of "conventional residential uses" on page IV -22 and if there are any size or other limitations related to multifamily projects that can or cannot be approved at the directorate level. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures' impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single family and multifamily developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings, any discretionary approval procedures and number of hearings. Streamlined Ministerial Approval Permit Procedures: The element should describe the City's SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlined ministerial approval procedure and include programs if appropriate. Building Codes and Their Enforcement: The element must describe the City's building and zoning code enforcement processes and procedures, any local amendments to the building code and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability Zoning, Development Standards, and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards, and fees on the City's website and include programs if appropriate. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include a description and analysis of potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, as follows: City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 November 19, 2021 Definition of Family. The element defines a family as "or more persons living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking, and eating facilities. Members of a "family" need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, or sorority house. (p. IV - 14)." The element should analyze any requirement subjecting housing for persons with disabilities to families being related by blood as a constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate. Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons: The element is unclear on how and where residential care facilities for seven or more persons are permitted. The element should analyze requirements for these types of housing, and if they do require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or are excluded from residential zones, specifically analyze these constraints for impacts on housing choices, approval certainty and objectivity for housing for persons with disabilities and include programs as appropriate. Residential Care Facilities with Six or Fewer Persons: Table IV -3 distinguishes between two types of housing where "Group Homes" are only allowed with a minor use permit in the RHD zone and "Residential Care Facilities- Limited" are allowed in all residential zones. The City should clarify the differences between the definitions for "Group Homes" and "Residential Care Facilities" identified in the municipal code, analyze any constraints on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate. 6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities: The element must include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those identified, the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially. The element must address any hinderance on the development of housing and include programs as appropriate. 7. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly, persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).) While the element quantifies the number of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter, it should complete the analysis and discuss available resources and the magnitude of need to better inform appropriate policies and programs. Local officials, special needs service providers or County social and City of Seal Beach's 6t" Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 November 19, 2021 City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 November 19, 2021 health service providers may be able to assist with information to complete the analysis. C. Housing Programs 1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. The element must provide discrete timing for all programs (e.g., month and year) to account for how often the action will occur as well as to ensure a beneficial impact throughout the planning period and quantify objectives where feasible. Additionally, all programs should be evaluated to ensure meaningful and specific actions and objectives. Programs containing unclear language (e.g., “Evaluate”; “Consider”; “Encourage”; etc.) should be amended to include specific and measurable actions. Examples of programs to be revised include but are not limited to: • Program 1E (Innovative Land Use and Construction Techniques): The Program should describe how the City will encourage the use of innovative techniques and how the City will provide flexibility. • Program 2B (Affordable Housing Resources): This program lists specific actions the City will take but must also include definitive timeframes. The Program could describe if the City is part of the Orange County Trust Fund. In addition, the Program should describe how a developer would access the affordable housing incentives, what incentives are offered and incentives beyond State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915). • Program 2C (Land Write Downs and Assistance with Off-Site Improvements): The Program should detail how and with what resources the City will subsidize the cost of land and off-site improvements. • Program 3D (Local Coastal Program): The Program requires a definitive timeframe (e.g., month or quarter). • Program 4C (Housing Conditions Monitoring): Specific timing is needed for actions. • Program 6B (Smart Growth): The actions of this program should be specific and have a discrete timeframe. 2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 November 19, 2021 with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single- room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element describes a shortfall of sites and indicates rezoning will occur to accommodate the RHNA. While the element includes Program 1 (Adequate Sites), it must specifically commit to acreage, allowable densities, and anticipated units. In addition, if necessary, to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households, the program should specifically commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Specifically, the Program must commit to: • permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval; • accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site; • require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and • at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites: o allow 100 percent residential use, and o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project. 3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) ELI and Special Needs Households and Individuals: While the element includes Program 2B (Affordable Housing Resources), the element must include program(s) to assist in the development of housing affordable to ELI households. Programs must be revised or added to the element to assist in the development of housing for ELI City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 November 19, 2021 households. In addition, the element should include specific actions to address the housing needs of special needs households. Program actions could include prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to ELI households or households with special needs and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, to address the identified housing needs for ELI households. 4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Currently the element only, and insufficiently, addresses affirmatively furthering fair housing in Program 5A. The element could revise other program actions to address the City’s obligation to AFFH including how programs address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. In addition, Program 5A should also describe how all the City’s housing programs comply with and further the requirements and goals of Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (b). 6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent… ….for very low, low-, or moderate-income households... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 November 19, 2021 The element is required to include a program that incentivizes or promotes ADU development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. While element include Program 1C (Accessory Dwelling Units), the program could be expanded to include incentives to promote the creation and affordability of ADUs. Examples include exploring and pursuing funding, modifying development standards, and reducing fees beyond state law, increasing awareness, pre-approved plans, and homeowner/applicant assistance tools. Other strategies could include developing information packets to market ADU construction, targeted advertising of ADU development opportunities or establishing an ADU specialist within the planning department. D. Quantified Objectives Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) While the element includes quantified objectives for construction and conservation on page V-15, it must also include quantified objectives for rehabilitation by income group. E. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(8).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (p. C1), it must also demonstrate diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element should be revised to discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, and participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided. In addition, the element should describe when the element was made available to the public and summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. Particularly, HCD received many valuable comments during the review of the housing element (provided under a separate cover) and encourages the City to evaluate these comments and incorporate revisions where appropriate. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov October 30, 2023 Alexa Smittle, Director Community Development Department City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Alexa Smittle: RE: City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Subsequent Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seal Beach’s (City) draft housing element received for review on August 31, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Carol Churchill and David Kellogg pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes these and other revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed. As this year has passed and Program 1A (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing Through Updates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) to rezone 1,150 units has not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning have been completed. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website Alexa Smittle, Director Page 2 and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. HCD appreciates the assistance of the City’s housing element team provided during the course of our review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at Reid.Miller@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief Enclosure City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 3 October 30, 2023 APPENDIX CITY OF SEAL BEACH The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).) While the element was revised to include a cumulative analysis on the housing needs of special needs populations in the previous cycle on page 1 and 2 of Appendix A, it must still provide further analysis detailing the effectiveness of specific past goals, policies and related actions. For example, the cumulative analysis for Large Households states that the “City continued to publicize programs and services that could meet the needs of this population,” but it does not specify what these programs and services entail or evaluate their effectiveness. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element was revised to include Program Actions 5a-5g that claim to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), these actions do not appear to facilitate any meaningful change nor address AFFH requirements. As stated in HCD’s prior review, actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must generally address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place- based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 4 October 30, 2023 level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Lot Consolidation: The element was not revised to meet this requirement. While Table B-2 provides some parcel-specific information, it does not provide the number of units broken down by income for each parcel number (APN) listed. Additionally, as stated in HCD’s prior review, because many of these APNs are less than half an acre and it is unclear whether they are being used to accommodate the City’s lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the element must demonstrate the potential for lot consolidation by providing analysis describing the City’s role or track record in facilitating small-lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation; conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for redevelopment; recent trends of lot consolidation, and information on the owners of each aggregated site. The analysis should also discuss whether the City will be rezoning each individual parcel identified in the sites inventory or rezoning sites after lot consolidation. Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to provide additional analysis on a site-by-site basis for assumed development capacity, this analysis does not meet the requirements specified in HCD’s prior review. The element must describe how the estimated number of units was adjusted for each site based on the land-use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. Additionally, the element did not address HCD’s prior review regarding demonstrating the likelihood of residential in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. Please see HCD’s prior review. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to include additional analysis for each site describing its “reason for selection,” the analysis does not address all the requirements specified in HCD’s April 8, 2022 review. Specifically, While the element was revised to provide additional examples of regional development in Figure B-1, the characteristics of these sites are not clearly linked to sites selection criteria on Page B-7, nor are they linked to sites in the City’s inventory. The element must be revised to demonstrate that the site selection criteria was developed based on recent patterns and trends in the region, and clearly indicate which criteria were considered on a site-by-site basis. In addition, for your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. While the resolution of adoption includes the appropriate findings, any changes to the analysis should be reflected in future re-adoption of the element. Finally, it has come to HCD’s attention that a number of sites in the inventory (Shops at Rossmoor, Old Ranch Town Center, and Old Ranch Country Club) are under the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). While the element provides a City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 5 October 30, 2023 general analysis of ALUC requirements in the Governmental Constraints section, it should also provide analysis on a site-by-site basis demonstrating that these requirements do not affect the availability of the sites in the inventory during the planning period. Military Sites: While the element was revised to include analysis demonstrating the Naval Weapons Station site is within the city limits and states that the City has “no zoning authority over the area,” Program 1s (Partner with the U.S. Navy and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station) also states that, “the City owns a small parcel of land within the fenced area of the Naval Weapons Station.” The element must be revised to clarify the process of development on this site, including what agency will be facilitating zoning and permitting, which agency has actual control over the site, and timing for development. In addition, if the City is not the permitting authority over the parcel, the element must demonstrate that there is an agreement with the entity controlling the land that grants the jurisdiction authority reporting new units to the California Department of Finance. Finally, while Program 1s was added to the element to encourage and facilitate development on the site, the program should be revised to include more definitive timelines for each program action and provide contingency actions if the site is ultimately not developed for housing. Alternatively, if plans for developing housing on the site are already being processed, the City should consider counting anticipated units on the site towards its existing RHNA progress. The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built, approved, or pending since July 1, 2021; however, the element must demonstrate their availability and affordability in the planning period. The element must assign these units to the various income groups based on actual or anticipated sales price or rent level of the units or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed-restrictions) and demonstrate their availability in the planning period. To demonstrate availability, the element should address the status, anticipated completion dates, any barriers to development and other relevant factors such as build out horizons, phasing, and dropout rates. Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Additionally, as noted in HCD’s April 8, 2022 review, while the revised element now includes a site-by-site analysis, there were several discrepancies between the analysis and the electronic sites inventory. The City should ensure that any future submittals of the electronic sites inventory match the inventory in the housing element submitted to HCD for review. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 6 October 30, 2023 required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land-Use Controls: While the element was revised to provide sufficient analysis and program actions for two-story height limits in the RHD-20 zone, minimum unit sizes for multifamily units, it must still provide a complete analysis for flood zone heights and development standards for residential projects in commercial zones, including whether 100 percent residential developments are allowed in mixed use areas, parking standards for studio and one bedroom units, and maximum lot coverage of less than 50 percent for multifamily housing. See HCD’s prior review. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element was revised to add additional information on permit processing and approval procedures by zone, and some housing types, it must still clarify processing and approval procedures for mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, and supportive housing. Additionally, the element should be revised to clarify if there are any size or other limitations related to multifamily projects that can or cannot be approved at the directorate level. Finally, the analysis must still evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single family and multifamily developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings, any discretionary approval procedures, and number of hearings. In addition, the element should address public comments on this revised draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate. Residential Care Facilities of Seven or More Persons: While the element was revised to clarify that group homes of six or more persons are conditionally permitted in the RHD (High Density Residential) zone, it was largely not revised to meet this requirement. As stated in HCD’s prior review, excluding these uses from residential zones and/or subjecting these uses to subjective findings is generally considered a constraint and the element should include programs committing to approval of these uses with objectivity and certainty. 4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 7 October 30, 2023 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Time: The element was not revised to meet this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review. C. Housing Programs 1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single- room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B3 and B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle Subsequent Draft Housing Element Page 8 October 30, 2023 As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. D. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) The element was not revised to meet this requirement. The element should be revised to discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, and participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided. In addition, the element should describe when the element was made available to the public and summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. Additionally, HCD received comments stating that residents of the community of Rossmoor were not properly notified that two sites bordering their community (The Shops and Rossmoor and Old Ranch sites) would be used in the City’s 6th cycle housing element. While Rossmoor is outside of the City boundaries in unincorporated Orange County, The City should still make efforts to include all effected parties moving forward as part of its housing element update and ensure that their comments are incorporated as appropriate. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 651 Bannon Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov October 17, 2024 Alexa Smittle, Director Community Development Department City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Alexa Smittle: RE: City of Seal Beach’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seal Beach’s (City) revised draft housing element update received for review on August 27, 2024. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The revised draft element meets most of the statutory requirements described in HCD’s June 18, 2024 review. However, the housing element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone) to rezone sites to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c). Pursuant to AB 1398, a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1) and 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed. Once the City completes the program, a copy of the resolution or ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence identifying the updated status of the City’s housing element compliance. Furthermore, as nonvacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the lower-income need, the housing element must describe “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional residential use on the site. Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Alexa Smittle, Director Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication the City of Seal Beach provided in preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at Reid.Miller@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov May 19, 2023 City Manager Jill R. Ingram City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear City Manager Jill R. Ingram: RE: Failure to Adopt a Compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element – Letter of Inquiry The purpose of this letter is to inquire about the status of Seal Beach’s (City) 6th cycle planning period (6th cycle) housing element pursuant to Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e). As you are aware, the 6th cycle update was due October 15, 2021. Therefore, the City is out of compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of the Government Code). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is requesting the City provide a specific timeline for (1) submitting an updated draft housing element and (2) obtaining compliance with State Housing Element Law no later than June 9, 2023. 6th Cycle Housing Element Submission and Review History The 6th cycle planning period for the City of Seal Beach is October 15, 2021, through October 15, 2029. The City failed to adopt a compliant housing element by its 6th cycle due date of October 15, 2021, pursuant to Government Code section 65588. HCD records are as follows: • On September 21, 2021, the City submitted a draft housing element to HCD for review. • On November 19, 2021, HCD issued a findings letter to the City noting multiple revisions necessary for the housing element to be compliant with State Housing Element Law. • On February 9, 2022, the City submitted an element adopted on February 7, 2022, to HCD for review. • On April 8, 2022, HCD issued a second findings letter to the City noting revisions were still necessary for the housing element to be compliant with State Housing Element Law. City Manager Jill R. Ingram Page 2 AB 1398, Statutes of 2021 Please note, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until any rezones necessary to accommodate a shortfall of sites are completed. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) Consequences of Noncompliance Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with State Housing Element Law. First, noncompliance result in ineligibility or delay in receiving state funds that require a compliant housing element as a prerequisite, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program • Local Housing Trust Fund Program • Infill Infrastructure Grant Program • SB 1 Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grants • Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Second, jurisdictions that do not meet their housing element requirements may face additional financial and legal ramifications. HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General, which may bring suit for violations of State Housing Element Law. Further, state law provides for court-imposed penalties for persistent noncompliance, including financial penalties. For example, Government Code section 65585, subdivision (l)(1), establishes a minimum fine of $10,000 per month, up to $100,000 per month. If a jurisdiction remains noncompliant, a court can multiply those penalties by a factor of six. Other potential ramifications could include the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent. In addition to these legal remedies available in the courts, under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)), jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element cannot rely on inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards as a basis for denial of a housing project for very low-, low-, or moderate- income households.1 1 For purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households is defined as having at least 20 percent of units set aside for low-income residents or 100 percent of units set aside for middle-income residents. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3).) City Manager Jill R. Ingram Page 3 Conclusion HCD recognizes that, ultimately, state housing laws are effective only with the cooperation of local governments and understands staffing and resource constraints that may hinder efforts to gain compliance. However, housing elements are essential to developing a blueprint for growth and are a vital tool to address California’s prolonged housing crisis. Accordingly, state law has established clear disincentives for local jurisdictions that fail to comply with State Housing Element Law. To meet the 6th cycle update requirements, the City must submit a draft housing element to HCD for review, consider HCD’s written findings, adopt the housing element, and submit it to HCD for review and determination of substantial compliance. (Gov. Code, § 65585.) HCD will consider any written response before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), including referral to the California Office of the Attorney General. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the content of this letter, please contact Kevin Hefner of our staff at Kevin.Hefner@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief By Electronic Mail May 19, 2025 Fidel Herrera State of California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Ave, Ste. 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 Re: Seal Beach Housing Element Update Dear Mr. Herrera: The City of Seal Beach (City) thanks you for your April 30, 2025 letter of inquiry regarding the status of the City’s Housing Element. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with an update. As noted in your letter, the City has been actively pursuing certification of its Housing Element for over four years and has faced numerous challenges, including loss of consultants and very limited staffing resources, but has nevertheless continued to press forward. In addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts that would be required to implement the Housing Element, including development of a new high density mixed-use zoning designation and the required evaluation under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement such a Municipal Code amendment. Specifically, the City had, in good faith, conducted community meetings and outreach in the development of the new zoning designation, and initiated the related CEQA process in 2023, including issuing a Notice of Preparation. However, in HCD’s October 30, 2023 letter, it was clear that additional changes to housing opportunity sites were required, putting the scope of CEQA analysis into question and pausing the effort. Fortunately, HCD’s October 17, 2024 letter stated the City’s Draft Housing Element appropriately addressed all State requirements for certification, pending rezoning of sites necessary to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It was at that time the City was able to finalize the project description City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update – Response to HCD May 19, 2025 and immediately re-initiated the CEQA analysis and technical studies. An update was provided via email to Mr. Reid Miller and Ms. Melinda Coy on January 22, 2025 regarding progress. Below is our estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezonings and adopt the updated Housing Element. May 9, 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) made available for public comment (45 days) June 23, 2025 Draft EIR comment period closes August 25, 2025 Final EIR issued for 10-day availability September 22, 2025 Final EIR, Zoning Code Update, Housing Element Update, Land Use Element Update, Main Street Specific Plan Update considered by the Planning Commission October 27, 2025 Final EIR, Zoning Code Update, Housing Element Update, Land Use Element Update, Main Street Specific Plan Update considered by the City Council October 28, 2025 Housing Element Update resubmitted to HCD Please note that the City has submitted its application to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consideration of the updated Housing Element, Land Use Element, Zoning Code, and updated Main Street Specific Plan, but has not yet been agendized for hearing. Now that the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated, the schedule is largely fixed, with the exception of any delays caused by the ALUC process. We welcome HCD’s assistance in expediting the ALUC process. I am happy to answer any further questions you may have. Please contact me at asmittle@sealbeachca.gov or (562) 431-2527 x1313. Sincerely, Alexa Smittle Community Development Director cc: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update – Response to HCD May 19, 2025 Amy Greyson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Melinda Coy, HCD David Zisser, HCD Junius Barrie, HCD Sidney Sloan, HCD Reid Miller, HCD 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE; AND ZONING CODE UPDATE INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, ZONING MAP; AND THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT, TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110425) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND. A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Seal Beach that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6th planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 period. B. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City's housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of these needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update. C. The City' s share of the regional housing need, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was established at 1,243 units in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan prepared and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in March 2021. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the Housing Element; 2 6 5 8 0 D. State law requires the Housing Element to identify adequate sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA for all income categories, and the Housing Element Update identifies sites that can accommodate housing exceeding the City's RHNA; E. Following an extensive public review and comment period beginning in 2021, and consultation with HCD, review by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos, respectively, and a public hearing held before the Seal Beach Planning Commission, on February 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and based upon findings and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. F. On February 9, 2022, the adopted Housing Element was transmitted to HCD pursuant to State law. G. On April 18, 2022, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the Housing Element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s November 19, 2021, letter, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. H. On August 31, 2023, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD’s letter. I. On September 27, 2023, a Town Hall meeting was held in Leisure World, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element along with a questions and answers session. J. On October 17, 2023, a community workshop was held to receive community feedback on the zoning amendments and objective design standards for the new mixed use zone K. On October 30, 2023, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but also notifying the City that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. L. On December 6, 2023, the Environmental Quality Control Board hosted a Scoping Meeting for the EIR of the Housing Element and rezone program. M. On April 19, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to the HCD’s letter. N. On June 18, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but also advising the City that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. 3 6 5 8 0 O. On August 27, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD a revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD’s letter. P. On October 17, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but further notified the City that the Housing Element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed the rezoning and adopted the Mixed Commercial/Residential High-Density Zone and other related actions. Q. The draft Housing Element dated August 2024 has been posted on the City’s website for public review, since October 2024. R. On April 30, 2025, the City received a written letter from HCD inquiring about the status of the City’s Housing Element update. S. On May 19, 2025, the City provided a response letter explaining that in addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Housing Element to HCD, the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts as required by HCD and the required evaluation of the environmental impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement the Zoning Code update. The letter also provided an estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezoning concurrently with the adoption of the Housing Element. T. On June 25, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a special meeting to solicit comments regarding the content of the Draft EIR. U. On September 17, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a meeting for a discussion on the Final EIR. V. To effectuate the Housing Element, by implementing zoning revisions that will accommodate the capacity for the housing as proposed in the Housing Element Update to meet the City’s RHNA obligation, City staff prepared amendments to the Zoning Code including the Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan. W. The City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. The revisions and responses to HCD' s comments are summarized in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. X. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto), and the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Y. Notice of this public hearing was provided as required by law. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. 4 6 5 8 0 Z. The revised Draft Housing Element Update dated August 2024 has been available online for public review beginning October 2024 at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Housing-Element-Update AA. In accordance with Section 65585 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission has reviewed HCD' s comments and the revised Draft Housing Element and finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element has been revised to address each of the findings made by HCD. The Planning Commission further finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised, will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, identifies adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Needs Housing Assessment on sites that have been previously identified for development, and substantially complies with the requirements of State law. BB. The documents, staff report, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, 90740. Section 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. 1) In compliance with State law, the City initiated this General Plan Amendment to update and revise the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) planning period, to replace the 2021-2029 Housing Element previously adopted on February 28, 2022. 2) The City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element includes updated data in compliance with State Housing laws and comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and a variety of programs and strategies to address Citywide housing needs and priorities. The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update contains goals, policies, and programs aimed at addressing the City’s housing development, preservation, and rehabilitation needs, including accommodating the City’s RHNA of 1,243 housing units by 2029, encouraging housing to serve lower income and special needs households, increase access to affordable and special needs housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The proposed project does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development, but rather includes goals and policies to facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and proposed uses identified in the General Plan and as mandated to be allowed under State law. 5 6 5 8 0 B. Zoning Code Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. 1) The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) Zone as stipulated in Program 1a of the Housing Element to provide adequate sites for housing through updates to the Zoning Code, and Program 1b of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at a maximum density of 46 units to an acre and a minimum density of 40 units to an acre, in order to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update. 2) The proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Code establishes the new MC/RHD Zoning designation along with related development standards in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element. 3) The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update also requires an amendment to the City’s Zoning Map, to change the zoning designation of the following properties to MC/RHD and High Density Residential (RHD - 33): Accurate Storge Site: APN 095-791-18 at 1011, from Residential High Density (RHD -20) to MC/RHD. The Shops at RossmoorAPNs: APNs 086-492-56, 086-492-80, 086- 492-87, 086-492-90, 086-492-92, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD Old Ranch Town Center: APNs 130-861-15, 130-861-16, 130-861-17, 130-861-18, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD. Seal Beach Plaza: APNs 095-641-44, 095-641-55, 095-641-57, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD. Seal Beach Center: APNs: APNs 043-260-02, 043-260-05, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD 99 Marina Drive, Seal Beach: APN 199-011-01, from Oil Extraction (OE) to Residential High Density (RHD-33). 4) Per State law, the City must approve the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map Amendments concurrently with the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. C. Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). 1) The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the MSSP, as stipulated in Program 1r of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at select locations and on the second floor or above within the MSSP area, in order for the City to meet its RHNA allocation and requirements outlined in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. . 6 6 5 8 0 Section 4. Environmental Review. Based on the record of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEGA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 1500 et seq.), the City of Seal Beach (the “City”) is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers. B. The City, as lead agency, determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project. C. The City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft EIR on November 16, 2023 and circulated the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, special districts, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties; as was filed with the Orange County Clerk and made available at the Seal Beach libraries and Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department and on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov for 30-day public review. D. A public scoping meeting was held on December 6, 2023, to solicit input from interested agencies and the public at Seal Beach Council Chamber at 211 Eight Street, Seal Beach. E. The City received oral comments at the scoping meeting and also received several written comment letters during the public review period which were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. F. On May 9, 2025, the City initiated the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR by filing a Notice of Availability with the State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, publishing the Notice in the Sun Newspaper a newspaper of general circulation, and releasing the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2023110425) for public review and comment to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, special districts, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties; as was filed with the Orange County Clerk and made available at the Seal Beach libraries and Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department and on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov. G. During the 45-day review period, the City received 17 comments and prepared responses to those comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, or required any changes to the Draft EIR. H. In accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005, on June 25, 2025, a duly noticed public meeting was conducted by the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) during the public comment period on the proposed Draft EIR. The EQCB received public comments on the Draft EIR, reviewed and provided comments on the Draft EIR, and forwarded those public comments and the EQCB’s comments to the 7 6 5 8 0 City staff to be incorporated into the proposed Draft EIR and to be included in the record to be submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed Final EIR and Project, in accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005(F). I. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR dated May 9, 2025, Appendices A through G thereto; the Comments submitted by members of the public and agencies, and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR (collectively “Exhibit A”, attached hereto), the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) (attached hereto as Exhibit “C”) for the Project. J. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Final EIR, and the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and Zoning Code, the Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan Updates. At the public hearing, City staff presented its report and interested persons presented evidence, both written and oral, regarding the Final EIR and proposed Project. Following receipt of all written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. K. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. The Final EIR and all other documents, reports and materials, which constitute the record of proceedings, is on file and available for public examination during normal business hours at Seal Beach City Hall, Planning Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, during regular business hours, and is posted on the City’s website at: http://www.sealbeachca.gov/. The custodian of the records is the Director of Community Development. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project subject to CEQA, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in a final environmental impact report accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, a) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, b) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 8 6 5 8 0 c) Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain some or all or the main objectives of the proposed project while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects that would occur. 2) These required findings for the Final EIR are set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. a) Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures are described in Exhibit “B”, Section V.A. b) Environmental impacts, or specific aspects of those impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels after mitigation, are discussed in Exhibit “B”, Section V.B. c) Environmental impacts that remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, as discussed in Exhibit “B”, Section V.C. 3) Alternatives to the Project that might reduce significant environmental impacts, and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives, are discussed in Exhibit “B”, Section VI. 4) The Final EIR identified mitigation measures that will mitigate impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geological and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems to a level of insignificance, and incorporated those mitigation measures into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (or MMRP), in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15091(d). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, which are set out on Exhibit “C”, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. 5) The Planning Commission has independently considered the record of proceedings before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 6) Economic, planning, social and state mandated housing laws benefits of the Project against the Project’s unavoidable adverse impacts outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts supported by the Findings of Fact with the Statement of Overriding Consideration. 9 6 5 8 0 Section 5. Recommendation. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the City Council find as follows: A. Declare that the above recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 5, inclusive, are true and correct. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. C. Find and declare that the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been completed in compliance with CEQA and full analyze and disclose the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations attached as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference. D. That the City Council certify the Final EIR, Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Consideration attached as Exhibit “B”; and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit “C”, . E. Direct City staff to implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit “C.” F. That the City Council direct City staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: ______________________________________________ NOES: ______________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ______________________________________________ ABSENT: ______________________________________________ 10 6 5 8 0 __________________________ Margo Wheeler, Chairperson ATTEST: ________________________________ Shaun Temple, AICP Planning Commission Secretary Attachments: Exhibit “A”: Final Environmental Impact Report (including Initial Study, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments, and Responses to Comments) Exhibit “B”: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit “C”: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (6TH CYCLE) OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN; AND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, ZONING MAP; AND THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, TO FULFILL STATE HOUSING LAW THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND. The City of Seal Beach (“City”) has initiated a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 Planning Period (Sixth Cycle), and to amend the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan (collectively the “Project”) to ensure consistency with and implement the Housing Element Update, in order to fulfill State housing law. The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Seal Beach that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6th planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 period. B. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City's housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of these needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update. C. The City' s share of the regional housing need, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was established at 1,243 units in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan prepared and adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in March 2021. The allocation establishes the number of new units needed, by income category, to accommodate expected population growth over the planning period of the Housing Element; 2 6 5 8 0 D. State law requires the Housing Element to identify adequate sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA for all income categories, and the Housing Element Update identifies sites that can accommodate housing exceeding the City's RHNA; E. In compliance with State law, the City initiated this General Plan Amendment to update and revise the Housing Element of the General Plan for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 planning period. F. On March 8, 2021 the Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint meeting to consider housing issues affecting the community and State requirements regarding the Housing Element, and received public oral and written comments. G. Between March 2021 and October 2021, the City circulated a Housing Element community online survey to the public, in order to obtain input from community members. H. On April 5 and April 27, 2021 the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee held public meetings to discuss Housing Element policy options and the sites inventory. I. On September 9, 2021, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65352 through 65352.5 relating to tribal notification requirements, the City mailed a project description to all local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No requests for consultation or comments were received by the City during the requisite 90-day response period for this notification. J. On September 20, 2021 the Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission conducted a second joint meeting to review the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and received public oral and written comments. K. On September 21, 2021 the City submitted the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review pursuant to Section 65585(b) of the California Government Code. L. On November 19, 2021 HCD provided written comments on the Draft Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update pursuant to Section 65585 of the Government Code. M. On January 6, 2022, The City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. N. On January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and adopted a resolution recommending its approval to the City Council, subject to certain minor changes. 3 6 5 8 0 O. On January 19, 2022, and January 20, 2022, the City circulated a copy of the recommended draft Housing Element to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos, respectively. P. On February 7, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and based upon findings and substantial evidence in the record, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Q. On February 9, 2022, the adopted Housing Element was transmitted to HCD pursuant to State law. R. On February 17, 2022 - OC ALUC held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and found it inconsistent with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. S. On April 8, 2022, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that while the Housing Element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s November 19, 2021, letter, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. T. On August 29, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting to overrule ALUC’s determination of inconsistency. U. On August 31, 2023, the City transmitted to HCD revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD’s letter. V. On September 27, 2023, a Town Hall meeting was held in Leisure World, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element along with a questions and answers session. W. On October 17, 2023, a community workshop was held to receive community feedback on the Zoning Code amendments and objective design standards for the new mixed use zone. X. On October 30, 2023, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but that revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. Y. December 6, 2023 – Environmental Quality Control Board hosted a Scoping Meeting for the EIR of the Housing Element and rezone program. Z. On April 19, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD the revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD’s letter. AA. On June 18, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but that additional revisions would be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. 4 6 5 8 0 BB. On August 27, 2024, the City transmitted to HCD a revised draft Housing Element for informal review in response to HCD’s letter. CC. On October 17, 2024, the City received a written letter from HCD finding that the Housing Element meets most of the statutory requirements, but also finding that the Housing Element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed the rezoning and adopted the Mixed Commercial/Residential High-Density Zone and other related actions. DD. The draft Housing Element dated August 2024 has been posted on the City’s website for public review, since October 2024. EE. On April 30, 2025, the City received a written letter from HCD inquiring about the status of the City’s Housing Element update. FF. On May 19, 2025, the City provided a response letter explaining that in addition to the series of revisions and resubmittals of the Draft Housing Element to HCD, the City has been simultaneously preparing for the rezoning efforts as required by HCD and the required evaluation of the environmental impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement the Zoning Code update. The letter also provided an estimated timeline to complete the necessary rezoning concurrently with the adoption of the Housing Element. GG. June 25, 2025 – Special Meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board to solicit comments Regarding the Content of the Draft EIR. HH. August 7, 2025 – OC ALUC held a meeting to review the draft Housing Element and Rezoning Program and found it inconsistent the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Land Use Plan. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider overruling the ALCU determination. II. September 17, 2025 – Environmental Quality Control Board meeting to present the Final EIR and a discussion regarding CEQA reform related to housing and the Housing Element. JJ. To effectuate the Housing Element, by implementing zoning revisions that will accommodate the capacity for the housing as proposed in the Housing Element Update to meet the City’s RHNA obligation, City staff prepared amendments to the Zoning Code, including the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). KK. The City revised the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update in response to the findings of HCD pursuant to Government Code Section 65585. The revisions and responses to HCD' s comments are summarized in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. LL. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan (Exhibits 5 6 5 8 0 “A”, “B” and “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. MM. Notice of this public hearing was provided as required by law. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. NN. The revised Draft Housing Element Update dated August 2024 has been available online at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-Development/Housing-Element-Update for public review beginning October 19, 2024. OO. In accordance with Section 65585 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission has reviewed HCD' s comments and the revised Draft Housing Element and finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element has been revised to address each of the findings made by HCD. The Planning Commission further finds that the 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update, as revised, will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, identifies adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Needs Housing Assessment on sites that have been previously identified for development, and substantially complies with the requirements of State law. PP. The custodian of records for all documents, staff report, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is the City Clerk. The administrative record is on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Seal Beach City Hall, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, 90740, and is posted on the City’s website at: http://www.sealbeachca.gov/. Section 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. Based on the record of the proceedings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-08, recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission hereby further finds as follows: A. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) (the Project), along with Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, pursuant to CEQA. B. Prior to taking action on this Project, the Planning Commission has carried out its independent review of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 6 5 8 0 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and pursuant to the adoption of Resolution No. 25-08, and further has reviewed and considered the entire record of proceedings. Section 3. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS. On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Housing Element Update for the Sixth Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan in order to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and requirements outlined in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. At the public hearing, all interested persons were allowed to speak. Based on the record of the proceedings, and the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, and in Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-08, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: A. Housing Element Update (2021-2029 Planning Cycle). 1) The City’s 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element. as updated, and as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.D, below, will amend the General Plan by replacing the 2021-2029 Housing Element previously adopted on February 28, 2022 with the 2021-2029 Housing Element, as set forth in Exhibit ‘A” to this Resolution. 2) The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update contains goals, policies, and programs aimed at addressing the City’s housing development, preservation, and rehabilitation needs, including accommodating the City’s RHNA of 1,243 housing units by 2029, encouraging housing to serve lower income and special needs households, increase access to affordable and special needs housing, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The proposed project does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development, but rather includes goals and policies to facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and proposed uses identified in the General Plan and as mandated to be allowed under State law. 3) Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Statement of Overriding Considerations and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in support adoption of the Housing Element . 4) The proposed Housing Element is in conformance with the environmental goals and policies adopted by the City. 5)The proposed Housing Element is consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan, and is necessary to carry out General Plan goals and policies that are set forth in the Land Use Element and other Elements of the General Plan, and will guide and direct orderly residential development in the City and sets forth 7 6 5 8 0 goals, policies and programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing for all economic segments of the community and housing for persons with special needs. 6)The proposed Housing Element will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare in that it will provide for the orderly residential development in the City that complies with the requirements of State law. B. Zoning Code Amendment 1) The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) Zone as stipulated in Program 1b of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at a maximum density of 46 units to an acre and a minimum density of 40 units to an acre. 2) The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) authorizes the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Code Amendments. 3) On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission was presented with amendments to the City’s Zoning Code as depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which establishes the new MC/RHD Zoning designation along with related development standards. 4) On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission was also presented with amendments to the City’s Zoning Map, as depicted on Exhibit “C”, to change the zoning designation of the following properties to MC/RHD and High Density Residential (RHD -33), which amendments are required by the City’s 20231-2029 Housing Element Update: Accurate Storge Site: APN 095-791-18 at 1011, from Residential High Density (RHD -20) to MC/RHD. The Shops at RossmoorAPNs: APNs 086-492-56, 086-492-80, 086- 492-87, 086-492-90, 086-492-92, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD Old Ranch Town Center: APNs 130-861-15, 130-861-16, 130-861-17, 130-861-18, from General Commercial (CG) to MC/RHD. Seal Beach Plaza: APNs 095-641-44, 095-641-55, 095-641-57, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD. Seal Beach Center: APNs: APNs 043-260-02, 043-260-05, from Service Commercial (SC) to MC/RHD 99 Marina Drive, Seal Beach: APN 199-011-01, from Oil Extraction (OE) to Residential High Density (RHD-33). 5) The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and Zoning Map, (as depicted in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by 8 6 5 8 0 reference as though set forth in full), are consistent with and reflective of the General Plan’s goals, polices, and intent to encourage orderly growth and development in a manner that preserves the public’s health, safety, and welfare because it addresses changes that have occurred in the City’s housing needs by implementing policies, procedures, and programs contained in the updated 6th cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029). Specifically, the amendments are in line with Program 1a – to provide adequate sites for housing through updates to the Zoning Code and Program 1b – to establish Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) Zone and change the zoning of five of the sites identified in subsection “D” above to MC/RHD. 6) Per State law, the City must approve the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map Amendments concurrently with the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. 1) A. Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update requires an amendment to the MSSP, as stipulated in Program 1r of the Housing Element which would allow the development of housing at select location and on the second floor or above within the MSSP area. 1) In In accordance with Government Code Section 65453(a), a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. 2) SBMC Section 11.5.05.010.B authorizes the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to specific plans. 3) On October 6, 2025, the Planning Commission was presented with amendments to the MSSP as depicted in Exhibit ”D”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, which allows housing in the MSSP area, except on the first floor facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue. 4) The proposed amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan are consistent with and reflective of the General Plan’s goals, polices, and intent to encourage orderly growth and development in a manner that preserves the public’s health, safety, and welfare because it addresses changes that have occurred in the City’s housing needs by implementing policies, procedures, and programs contained in the updated 6th cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029). Specifically, the amendments are in line with Program 1r – to allow housing at select locations (second floor and above) in the Main Street Specific Plan. 9 6 5 8 0 Section 5. Recommendation. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, and the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. Declare that the above recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 4, inclusive, are true and correct. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element and Zoning Code, Zoning Map and MSSP Updates. C. Find and declare that the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been completed in compliance with CEQA and fully analyze and disclose the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations attached as Exhibits “B” and “C” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-08, incorporated herein by reference. D. Approve the 2021-2029 Housing Element, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”, and further authorize and direct the City Manager and Community Development Director to make any technical, clerical and other non-substantive changes or clarifications to the Housing Element made by the Community Development Director as may to respond to comments received from the Department of Housing and Community Development on the adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element in order to obtain a finding of substantial compliance with State law. E. Adopt the amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Main Street Specific Plan, as set forth in Exhibits “B”, C” and “D”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. F. That the City Council direct City staff to implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit XX. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: ______________________________________________ NOES: ______________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ______________________________________________ ABSENT: ______________________________________________ 10 6 5 8 0 __________________________ Margo Wheeler, Chairperson ATTEST: ________________________________ Shaun Temple, AICP Planning Commission Secretary Attachments: Exhibit “A”: Housing Element Update Exhibit ”B”: Zoning Code Amendment Exhibit ”C”. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit ”D”: Main Street Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit “E”: HCD Comments and Responses AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue• Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 October 8, 2025 Seal Beach Mayor and City Council c/o Shaun Temple, Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Response to Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission Determination for Seal Beach General Plan Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Associated Zoning Code Amendment, and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment Mayor and City Council Members: We are in receipt of your September 10, 2025, letter notifying the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) of the City of Seal Beach's (City) intent to overrule the ALUC' s inconsistency determination on the General Plan Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, associated Zoning Code Amendments, and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Amendment. A copy of the draft City Council Resolution No. 7691 was attached. In accordance with Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the proposed overrule findings for the above-referenced Project. This letter is advisory to the City and must be included in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City's governing body. Please be advised that PUC Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." Background On February 17, 2022, the ALUC reviewed the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and determined it to be Inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos). The determination was based on AELUP Section 2.1.1 (Aircraft Noise), which recognizes that aircraft noise may be incompatible with the general welfare of nearby inhabitants, and AELUP Section 3.2.1 (General Land Use Policies), which provides that any land use may be found Docusign Envelope ID: 8FB0096A-29BD-4D1E-BE98-711BD1737894 ALUC Comments Seal Beach Notice of Intent to Overrule October 8, 2025 Page 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 8FB0096A-29BD-4D1E-BE98-711BD1737894 Docusign Envelope ID: 8FB0096A-29BD-4D1E-BE98-711BD1737894 ALUC Comments Seal Beach Notice of Intent to Overrule October 8, 2025 Page 4 We urge the City Council to take ALUC's concerns into consideration in its deliberations prior to deciding whether to overrule ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Gerald A. Bresnahan Chairman cc: Members of Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Matt Friedman, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics Vincent Ray, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics Docusign Envelope ID: 8FB0096A-29BD-4D1E-BE98-711BD1737894 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov October 9, 2025 Mr. Shaun Temple Electronically Sent: stemple@sealbeachca.gov Interim Community Development Director City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, California 90740 Dear Mr. Temple: The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans), supports cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) in developing land use policies that promote public health, safety, and welfare near airports. On September 10, 2025, Caltrans received the City of Seal Beach’s draft Resolution No. 7691, which declared the City’s intent to overrule the Orange County ALUC inconsistency determination for the proposed Seal Beach Housing Element Update, Zoning Code Amendment and Main Street Specific Plan Amendment (Project) with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the City’s proposed overrule. Caltrans has reviewed the City’s Findings included in the September 10, 2025 submittal, along with the ALUC Staff Report and Inconsistency Determination Letter, both dated August 7, 2025. Based on this review, Caltrans has determined that the City’s Findings does not provide sufficient justification to support the proposed overrule. Specifically, Caltrans disagrees with the City’s Findings that residential development proposed at Site 6 (Old Ranch Town Center, up to 306 units) and the Old Ranch Country Club pipeline site (167 units) is compatible with the AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos. Both sites are located within the 60 CNEL contour and, in the case of the Old Ranch Country Club, directly under the approach surface approximately 3,000 feet from the end of Runway 4R. The Orange County ALUC determined these locations to be inconsistent with the AELUP under Section 2.1.1 (Aircraft Noise) and Section 3.2.1 (General Land Use Policies), citing the risk of exposing future residents to adverse aircraft noise and concentrating people in areas susceptible to accidents. By relying on generalized interior noise standards to support compatibility, the City’s Findings Mr. Temple, Interim Community Development Director October 9, 2025 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” minimize the conditional nature of these designations and do not fully address the Commission’s concerns to ensure land use compatibility in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21675.1(f)states: “If a city or county overrules the commission… with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal injury resulting from the city’s or county’s decision to proceed with the action, regulation, or permit.” Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(a), please include this letter, along with the ALUC’s comments in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at vincent.ray@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Vincent Ray Aviation Planner Caltrans Division of Aeronautics c: Julie Fitch, Executive Director, ALUC Orange County, jfitch@ocair.com Zoning Map Amendments Map 1 Old Town/Brideport Map 2 Marina Hill/Hellman Ranch Map 3 Leisure World Map 5 Rossmoor Center Legend FREEWAY ZONING RLD-9 (Residential Low Density-9) RLD-15 (Residential Low Density-15) RMD-18 (Residential Medium Density-18) RHD-20 (Residential High Density-20) RHD-33 (Residential High Density-33) RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Development) RHD-46 (Residential High Density-46) LC/RMD (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density) MSSP (Main Street Specific Plan) PO (Professional Office) SC (Service Commercial) GC (General Commercial) LM (Light Manufacturing) OE (Oil Extra ction) PS (Public and Semipublic Facilities) RG (Recreation /Golf) MIL (Military) BEA (Beach) OS-N (Open Space Natural) OS-PR (Open Space Parks and Recreation) SPR (Specific Plan Regulation) Zoning Map OCEAN AV5TH STCENTRAL AV1ST S T ECATALINA AV BOLSA AV PACIFIC COAST HWY6TH ST1S T ST W MARINA DR 7TH ST4TH ST8TH ST17TH ST10TH STBALBOA DR11TH ST16TH ST15TH STMAIN STMARLIN AV 14TH STLANDING AV 13TH STMARVISTA AV COASTLINE DR TAPER DR12TH ST2ND STSEAL WY (WALK WAY)3RD STCRESTVIEW AV DRIFTWOOD AV GALLEON W YFATHOM AV DOLPHIN AV1ST STCORSAIR WY CLIPPER WY SEAL BEACH BLVDSAND PIPER DRRIVIERA DRSU RF PL SOUTH SHORE DRBEACH COMBER DRCENTRAL WY SCHOONER WYC A R M E L A V AVALON DRLAGUNA PLCARAVEL WYM ARINE AVOPAL COVE WYAGUA PLMARBLE COVE WYEMERALD COVE WY NEPTUNE AVSILVER SHOALS AVCRYSTAL PLE L E C T R I C A V10TH ST8TH ST14TH STE L E C T R I C A V 7TH STE L E C T R I C A V 11TH STMAIN ST13TH ST12TH ST(OLD TOWN & BRIDGEPORT) RLD-9 (OCEAN AV) BEA MSSP RHD-20 RHD-20 RHD-20 O S -P R OS-PR OS- PR SPR (DWP) SC RHD-33 RLD-15 GC GC GC PS MILLC/RMDRLD-9 PS RLD-9 SPR OS-N (SPR) MSSP RHD-33 2 SC MC/RHD (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density) Map updated: September 25, 2025 MC/RHD Legend FREEWAY ZONING RLD-9 (Residential Low Density-9) RLD-15 (Residential Low Density-15) RMD-18 (Residential Medium Density-18) RHD-20 (Residential High Density-20) RHD-33 (Residential High Density-33) RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Development) RHD-46 (Residential High Density-46) LC/RMD (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density) MSSP (Main Street Specific Plan) PO (Professional Office) SC (Service Commercial) GC (General Commercial) LM (Light Manufacturing) OE (Oil Extraction) PS (Public and Semipublic Facilities) RG (Recreation/Golf) MIL (Military) BEA (Beach) OS-N (Open Space Natural) OS-PR (Open Space Parks and Recreation) SPR (Specific Plan Regulation) Zoning Map OCEAN AV CATALINA AV BOLSA AV E L E C T R IC A V CENTRAL AV SEAL BEACH BLVDMARINA DR 7TH STCRESTVIEW AV 8TH ST17TH ST10TH STMARLIN AVRD AOBLAB11TH ST16TH STCOASTLINE DR 15TH STMAIN ST14TH STLANDING AV MONTEREY RD 13TH STMARVISTA AV RD REPAT12TH STRD EDIS YABHERON CIRDRIFTWOOD AV BLUE HERONGALLEON WYFATHOM AV RD EZEERB AESCRUHCRD REPIP DNASRD WEIV DNALSIRIVIERA DRSU R F PL HARBOR WYRD EROHS HTUOSB A Y O U W YRD REBMOC HCAEBC A R M E L A V AVALON DRADOLFO LOPEZ DR LAGUNA PLBERYL COVE WYAGUA PLCRYSTAL COVE WY FRESH MEADOW LN EMERALD PL12TH ST10TH STPACIFIC COAST HWY8TH STE L E C T R I C A V SEAL BEACH BLVD14TH ST11TH ST7TH ST(MARINA HILL, HELLMAN RANCH & BOEING FACILITY) 3 SPR RLD-9 GC GC PS PS GC RLD-9 RHD-20 RHD-20 MSSP MIL LC/RMD OS-N (SPR)RLD-9 (SPR)OE (SPR) (HELLMAN RANCH) PS LM (SPR) (BOEING) GC (SPR) GC O S - P R GC OS-N (SPR) MC/RHD MC/RHD MC/RHD (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density) Map updated: September 25, 2025 Legend FREEWAY ZONING RL D-9 (Residential Low Density-9) RL D-15 (Residential Low Density-15) RM D-18 (Residential Medium Density-18) RHD-20 (Residential High Density-20) RHD-33 (Residential High Density-33) RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Develop ment) RHD-46 (Residential High Density-46) LC/RMD (Limited Commercial/Resident ial Medium Den sity) MSSP (Main Street Specific Plan) PO (Professional Office) SC (Service Commercial) GC (General Commercial) LM (Lig ht Manufact uring) OE (Oil Extraction) PS (Public and Semipu blic Facilit ies) RG (Recreation/Golf) MIL (Milit ary) BEA (Beach) OS-N (Op en Sp ace Natural) OS-PR (Open Space Parks and Recreatio n) SPR (Specific Plan Regulation) Zoning Map S T A NDRE WS DREL DORADO DRG O LD E N R AIN R D WESTMINSTER BLVD SEAL BEACH BLVDDE L MONT E DRN O R TH W O O D R D BEVERLY MANOR RD M ER IO N W YO AKM O N T R D MONTEREY RDNASSAU DRT HU ND E RB I R D DR A N N A ND A L E DRPELHAM R D IN TE R LA C H E N R D CANOE BROOK DRA L D E RWOOD L N CHURCH PLS T JO H N R DOA K H I L L S DR M C K IN N E Y W Y GOLDEN RAIN F A I R F I E L D L NS U N N IN G D A LE R D M AY FIELD R D S EA V I E W L NCE DA R CR E S T L NFOXBURG RD KN O LLW O O D R D W E E BU R N R D B U R N I N G T R E E L N G LE N V IE W R D COLLEG E PARK DR T WI N HI L L S DRME D I NA C L ND A N B U R Y L N TA M O S H A N TE R R DKENWOOD R D S HA WNE E L NF RE S H ME A DOW L N S OU T HP OR T L NEXMOOR DRGOLDEN RAIN RD (LEISURE WORL D) RHD-PD PO RG LM RHD-PD 4GC SC MC/RHD MC/RHD (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density) Map updated: September 25, 2025 SC SC Legend FREEWAY ZONING RLD-9 (Residential Low Density-9) RLD-15 (Residential Low Density-15) RMD-18 (Residential Medium Density-18) RHD-20 (Residential High Den sity-20) RHD-33 (Residential High Den sity-33) RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Deve lopment) RHD-46 (Residential High Den sity-46) LC/RMD (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density) MSSP (Main St reet Specific Plan) PO (Professional Office) SC (Service Commercial) GC (Ge neral Co mmercial) LM (Light Manu facturing) OE (Oil Extraction) PS (Public and Semipublic Facilities) RG (Recreation /Golf) MIL (Military) BEA (Beach) OS-N (Open Space Natural) OS-PR (Open Space Parks a nd Recre ation) SPR (Specific Plan Regulation) Zoning Map SEAL BEACH BLVDPLYMOUTH DR ROSSMOOR CENTER WY PROVINCE TOWNNANTUCKET PLLIGHTHOUSE LNOLD HARBOR CTCHATHAM WY BRIDGEWATER WYROSSMOOR CENTER (ROSSMOOR CEN TER) RHD-46 RHD-46RHD-46GC GC RMD-18 PS OS-PR RG 6 MC/RHD MC/RHD MC/RHD (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density) Map updated: September 25, 2025 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 1 of 40 Except as expressly modified by track changes all provisions of Title 11 (Zoning Code) remain in full force and effect. TABLE 11.1.05.030 OF SECTION 11.1.05.030 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.1.05.030 Designation of Base and Overlay Districts. The city shall be classified into districts or zones, the designation and the regulations of which are set forth in this zoning code and as follows: A. Base and Overlay Zoning Districts. The city’s base zoning districts and overlay zoning districts are set forth in Table 11.1.05.030: Zoning Districts. Table 11.1.05.030 Zoning Districts Zoning Map Symbol Zoning District Name General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Designation Base Residential Zoning Districts RLD-9 Residential Low Density - 9 Residential Low Density RLD-15 Residential Low Density - 15 Residential Low Density RMD - 18 Residential Medium Density - 18 Residential Medium Density RHD - 20 Residential High Density - 20 Residential High Density RHD - 33 Residential High Density - 33 Residential High Density RHD - 46 Residential High Density - 46 Residential High Density Base Mixed Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts L-C/RMD Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Mixed Use MC-RHD Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Mixed Use MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Main Street Specific Plan PO Professional Office Professional Office SC Service Commercial Service Commercial GC General Commercial General Commercial LM Light Manufacturing Light Manufacturing OE Oil Extraction Oil Extraction Base Public and Semi-Public Districts PS Public and Semi-Public Facilities Community Facility and School RG Recreation/Golf Open Space - Golf Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts MIL Military Military BEA Beach Beach OS-N Open Space Natural Open Space OS-PR Open Space Parks and Recreation Park Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations RC-O Residential Conservation - Overlay All PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay All C/P Commercial/Park All Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 2 of 40 CZ Coastal Zone All SPR Specific Plan Regulations All (Ord. 1598) SECTION 11.1.15.025 OF CHAPTER 11.1.15 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.1.15.025 Measuring Height. A. General. The height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average level of the highest and lowest elevationfinished grade of the ground covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure or to the peak of a gable, pitched, mansard or hipped roof or to the finished roofline of a flat roof or top of a parapet required by California Building Code. 1. Exceptions for Accessory Building Features. The following listed building features may be erected to a maximum height as follows: a. Chimneys. Two feet above roofline as per California Building Code. b. Flagpole. Up to 20 feet (10 feet above roofline maximum). c. Antennae. Up to 10 feet above roofline. Ground antennae to a maximum of 40 feet if located in the rear yard adjacent to the main structure. 2. Exception for Surfside. Maximum building height for residential structures, including accessory dwelling units, shall be measured pursuant to Section 11.2.05.015.A.3: Building Height Limit. B. Measuring the Height of Buildings Located Near Retaining Walls. If any portion of a building lies within 5 horizontal feet of an above-ground retaining wall, and the base of the retaining wall is at a lower elevation than the building, the height of the building shall be calculated from the base of the retaining wall (at the lower of natural or finished grade) rather than from the base of the building wall. See Figure 11.1.15.025.B: Measuring the Height of Buildings Near Retaining Walls. Figure 11.1.15.025.B Measuring the Height of Buildings Near Retaining Walls Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 3 of 40 C. Measurement of Fence or Wall Height. 1. Determination of Height. The height at the property line shall be measured from the owner’s side of the fence or wall. A joint fence or wall on the property line may be measured from either side of the fence or wall. In the case of a joint fence or wall where there is a difference in the ground level between 2 adjoining parcels of less than 2 feet, the height of a fence or wall constructed along the property line shall be determined by using the finished grade at the base of the fence or wall on the highest parcel. [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 3 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 4 of 40 Figure 11.1.15.025.C Determination of Property Line Fence Height 2. Determination—Ground Level Difference More than 2 Feet. When there is a difference in the ground level between 2 adjoining parcels of 2 feet or more, the height of a fence or wall shall be determined by the provisions of subsection D, Measuring the Height of Combined Fences and Retaining Walls. D. Measuring the Height of Combined Fences and Retaining Walls. When a fence is constructed on top of or within 1 foot of the face of an above-ground retaining wall greater than 2 feet in height, and located in a required yard, the height of the fence shall be measured from the top of the fence to the midpoint height of the retaining wall, excluding the uppermost 2 feet of the retaining wall. Figure 11.1.15.025.D Fences on Top of Retaining Walls E. Measuring the Height of Decks. Deck height is measured from grade to the top of the floor of the deck if there is no rail or if the rail walls are more than 50% open, and from the ground to the top of the rails for all other situations. (Ord. 1699; Ord. 1598) Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 5 of 40 SECTION 11.2.10.005 OF CHAPTER 11.2.10 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.2.10.005 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter are applicable to the following zoning code district designations: LC-RMD: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone. To allow limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. MC-RHD: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone. To allow resident-serving, visitor serving, commercial, and office uses in conjunction with high-density residential uses. PO: Professional Office. To allow office, medical and related uses that may also serve as a buffer area between residential areas and more intensive commercial areas. MSSP: Main Street Specific Plan. To allow visitor-serving and resident-serving office, retail, restaurant, and personal service uses with upper floors devoted to office uses along Main Street. SC: Service Commercial. To allow neighborhood-serving commercial areas that provide retail, restaurant, and personal service uses. GC: General Commercial. To allow sub-regional and regional centers of commercial activity and may include both pedestrian- and auto-oriented development. Other typical uses are auto service stations, auto repair, and sales. (Ord. 1598) TABLE 11.2.10.010 OF SECTION 11.2.10.010 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.2.10.010 Land Use Regulations. Table 11.2.10.010: Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts prescribes the land use regulations for commercial and mixed-use districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows: “P” Uses permitted as-of-right that require no discretionary review if in compliance with all standards. “L” Uses permitted as-of-right subject to limitations restricting location, size, or other characteristics to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Limitations are referenced by number designations listed at the end of Table 11.2.10.010: Use Regulations— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts. “M” Uses subject to a minor use permit following discretionary review by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits. “C” Uses subject to a conditional use permit following discretionary review and public hearing by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits. “—” Uses that are not permitted. The “Additional Regulations” column includes specific regulations applicable to the use classification, that are located elsewhere in this zoning code. Use classifications are defined in Chapter 11.4.85: Use Classifications. Use classifications not listed in Table 11.2.10.010: Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts are prohibited Table 11.2.10.010 USE REGULATIONS— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 6 of 40 LC/R MD MC- RHD (L-9) PO MSS P SC GC Additional Regulations Residential Use Types Single Unit Residential P ——L-1 ——See Section 11.2.10.015 and Section 11.4.05.060 Second Unit —————— Two-Unit Residential (Duplex)P —— L-1 —— Multiple Unit Residential P P —L-18 —— Family Day Care Small Family P P ———— Large Family C C C —C C See Section 11.4.05.045 Emergency Shelter —P ———— Group Housing —P C ——— Senior Citizen Housing —P ———— Commercial Marijuana Uses ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.A and C; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Outdoor Cultivation ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.B; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Indoor Cultivation at Private Residence (legally nonconforming private residence) L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 See Section 11.4.100.010.C.1 and C; and Section 5.70.025 Public, Semi-Public, and Service Use Types Clubs and Lodges —C ——C C See Section 11.4.05.080 Community Center C C C —C C Community Social Service Facilities —C C —C C Cultural Institutions —C C —C C See Section 11.4.05.080 Day Care Center C C C —C C See Section 11.4.05.045 Government Offices M M M M M M Hospitals and Clinics Hospitals ——C —C C Clinics —C C —C C Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P P P Parking Facilities, Public C C C C C C See Chapter 11.4.20 Public Safety Facilities M M M M M M Religious Facilities ——C —C C Residential Care Facilities See Section 11.4.05.105 Residential Care, General —P C —C C Residential Care, Limited P P C —C C Residential Care, Senior —P C —C C Schools, Private C C C —C C See Section 11.4.05.080 Commercial Marijuana Uses ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.A and C; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Outdoor Cultivation ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.B; and Section 5.70.025 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 7 of 40 LC/R MD MC- RHD (L-9) PO MSS P SC GC Additional Regulations Marijuana—Indoor Cultivation at Private Residence (legally nonconforming private residence) L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 See Section 11.4.100.010.C.1 and C; and Section 5.70.025 Commercial Use Types Adult Business Establishments —————P See Chapter 11.4.50 Animal Sales and Services —M —M M M Artists’ Studios P P P P P P Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Automobile Rentals ————M M Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing —————P Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major ————C C See Section 11.4.05.040 Automobile Service Stations/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor ————C C See Section 11.4.05.035 Automobile Washing ————M M Large Vehicle Sales, Services and Rental —————A Bakery L-4 L-4 —L-4 L-4 L-4 Banks and Other Financial Institutions —P P P P P With Drive-Through Facilities ——C C C C See Section 11.4.05.050 Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)—M M M M M See Section 11.4.05.030 Building Materials and Services —————C Business Services P P P L-2, L-3 P P Commercial Recreation Large-scale —C ——C C Small-scale —M ——M M Eating and Drinking Establishments Bars —C —C C C Coffee House/ Dessert Shop —P —P; L- 5; L-6 P P Restaurants, Fast Food —C ——C C See Section 11.4.05.050 Restaurants, Full Service —C —P, C P, C P, C See Section 11.4.05.015 Restaurants, Limited Service —P —P P P See Section 11.4.05.015 Restaurants, Take Out Only —P —P AM M With Drive-Through Facilities ————C C See Section 11.4.05.050 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 8 of 40 LC/R MD MC- RHD (L-9) PO MSS P SC GC Additional Regulations With Outdoor Eating Areas —M —M, C M, C M, C See Section 11.4.05.090 Extended Hour Business C C ——C C See Section 11.4.05.055 Food and Beverage Sales Catering Services —P ———P Convenience Market —P ——P, C P, C See Section 11.4.05.015 General Market —P —P, C P, C P, C See Section 11.4.05.015 Liquor Stores —C —C C C See Section 11.4.05.070 Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries —————P Home Improvement Sales and Services —————C See Sections 11.4.05.090 and 11.4.05.140 Hotels and Motels —————C Kennel ————C C Kiosks ————M M See Section 11.4.05.065 Laboratories ——P L-2, L-3 P P Maintenance and Repair Services P P ——P P Massage Establishment P P P L-2, L-3 P P See Chapter 5.45, Massage and Massage Establishments Commercial Marijuana Uses ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.A and C; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Outdoor Cultivation ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.B; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Indoor Cultivation at Private Residence (legally nonconforming private residence) L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 See Section 11.4.100.010.C.1 and C; and Section 5.70.025 Offices, Business and Professional P P P L-2, L-3 P P Walk-in Clientele P P P L-2, L-3 P P Offices, Medical and Dental P P P L-2, L-3 P P Parking Facilities, Commercial ———C —C See Chapter 11.4.20 Personal Services P P P P P P Retail Sales P P —P P P See Section 11.4.05.090 Large Format ————P P See Section 11.4.05.140 Smoke Shop ————C C See Chapter 5.75 Tattoo Establishments —————C See Chapter 11.4.65 Theaters ———C —C Light Manufacturing Use Types Contractors’ Yards —————— Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing P P P P P P Industry, Limited —————— Industry, General —————— Warehousing and Storage — — — —— — Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 9 of 40 LC/R MD MC- RHD (L-9) PO MSS P SC GC Additional Regulations Commercial Marijuana Uses ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.A and C; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Outdoor Cultivation ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.B; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Indoor Cultivation at Private Residence (legally nonconforming private residence) L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 See Section 11.4.100.010.C.1 and C; and Section 5.70.025 Indoor Commercial Storage —————— Outdoor Storage —————— Personal Storage —————— Transportation, Communication, and Utility Use Types Wireless Communication Facilities See Chapter 11.4.70 Antennae and Transmission Towers C C C C C C Satellite dishes less than 79″ in diameter P P P P P P Recycling Facilities See Section 11.4.10.025 Recycling Collection Point ————C C Recycling Processing Facility —————C Reverse Vending Machines P P P P P P Utilities, Major Hazardous Waste Facility —————C See Chapter 11.4.60 Utilities, Minor P P P P P P Agriculture Use Types Nurseries ———P P P Commercial Marijuana Uses ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.A and C; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Outdoor Cultivation ——————See Section 11.4.100.010.B; and Section 5.70.025 Marijuana—Indoor Cultivation at Private Residence (legally nonconforming private residence) L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 L-7 See Section 11.4.100.010.C.1 and C; and Section 5.70.025 Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Use See Section 11.4.05.010: Accessory Business Uses and Activities Nonconforming Use See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use See Chapter 11.5.25: Director Determinations L-1 Permitted if an existing use; new uses are prohibited. See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. L-2 Not allowed on the ground floor along Main Street without a conditional use permit; allowed on side streets as a permitted use. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 10 of 40 L-3 If on the ground floor along Main Street permitted if an existing use; new uses are prohibited. See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. L-4 Bakery production sold at retail on-premises. L-5 Permitted use if less than 1,000 square feet and less than 10 seats. L-6 Minor use permit required if 1,000 square feet or more and 10 seats or more. L-7 Limited to indoor marijuana cultivation of no more than 6 live marijuana plants for personal use, to be planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single private residence or inside an accessory structure located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secured and conducted in accordance with Section 5.70.025 of Chapter 5.70. L-8 Permitted on the second floor or above only. Ground floor residences are permitted if existing, but new ground floor residences are prohibited. See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. L-9 For mixed-use development or redevelopment on sites within the MC-RHD zone, such projects may be 100% residential use but in no case shall residential use occupy less than 50% of the total floor area of the mixed-use project. The prior sentence does not apply to tenant improvements or changes in nonresidential uses within existing nonresidential structures. (Ord. 1664; Ord. 1638; Ord. 1630; Ord. 1617; Ord. 1598) SECTION 11.2.10.015 OF CHAPTER 11.2.10 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.2.10.015 Development Standards. Table 11.2.10.015: Development Standards— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts prescribes the development standards for the commercial and mixed use districts. The “Additional Regulations” column indicates more detailed explanations or regulations that follow the table (by letter designation) or that are located elsewhere in this zoning code. Table 11.2.10.015 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS LC/RMD MC-RHD PO MSSP SC GC Additional Regulations Lot Size and Density Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.)2,500 5,000 7,000 2,750 7,000 10,000 Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.90 0.90 ———— Minimum Residential Floor Area — 50% of total floor area (L-1) ———— Residential Density (du/ac)— Min. 40, Max. 46 (L-1) ————(A) Maximum Residential Density - lot area per unit (sq. ft.) Base Density 2,500 —————(A) Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 11 of 40 LC/RMD MC-RHD PO MSSP SC GC Additional Regulations Density for Mixed Use Development 2,000 —————(A) Density - Affordable Housing Bonus See Additional Regulations See Chapter 11.4.55: Affordable Housing Bonus Building Form and Location Maximum Building Height (ft.)35 Max. 5 stories 35 25, max. 2 stories 35 35 (B) Building Setback on Street Frontages varies varies varies varies varies varies (C) Minimum Yard Requirements Interior Side varies varies varies varies varies varies (C) (L) Rear varies varies varies varies varies varies (C) (L) Building Transition Zone Adjacent to R Districts Yes Yes (D) Landscaping and Public Open Space Public Open Space Yes Yes (E) Minimum lot area to be landscaped 5%10%10%0%10%10% See Chapter 11.4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards Minimum required front yard area to be landscaped 60%25%———— Limitations - Location of Parking Yes (F) Limitations on Curb Cuts Yes (G) Limitations - Location of Truck Docks; Loading and Service Areas Yes (H) Off-Street Parking and Loading Yes See Chapter 11.4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading Reduced Parking Requirements Yes See Chapter 11.4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading Building Design Building Orientation Yes (I) Design Provisions —Yes —Yes ——(J) (P) Special Requirements for Residential Development Open Space (sq. ft. per unit)100 —————(K) Private Open Space (sq ft per unit)—Min. 48 ————(K) Common Open Space (sq. ft. per unit)100— Min. 15 per unit or 400 total, which- ever is greater ————(K) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks Yes Yes ————(L) Other Applicable Development Standards Consistency with Council Adopted Design Guidelines, Area Plans, or Specific Plans (M) Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 12 of 40 LC/RMD MC-RHD PO MSSP SC GC Additional Regulations Pedestrian Access to Buildings Setback from the Street (N) Projections into Required Yards (O) General Site Standards See Chapter 11.4.10: General Site Standards Fencing See Chapter 11.4.15: Fences, Hedges, and Walls Parking and Loading See Chapter 11.4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading Signs See Chapter 11.4.25: Sign Regulations Landscaping and Buffer Yards See Chapter 11.4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards Coastal Development Permit See Chapter 11.4.35: Coastal Development Permit Nonconforming Structures and Lots See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots L-1 For mixed-use development or redevelopment on sites within the MC-RHD zone, such projects may be 100% residential use but in no case shall residential use occupy less than 50% of the total floor area of the mixed-use project. The prior sentence does not apply to tenant improvements or changes in nonresidential uses within existing nonresidential structures. A. Maximum Residential Density/Development Standards. 1. Calculation of Residential Density and FARs for Mixed Use Projects. Permitted residential densities for mixed-use projects shall be in addition to floor area ratios permitted for commercial uses in Table 11.2.10.015, above, within the limits of all required yard, height and other developments standards. a. FAR for Nonresidential Development. The FAR for nonresidential development in the LC- RMD District is set forth in Table 11.2.10.015.A: Nonresidential FAR— LC-RMD District. Table 11.2.10.015.A NONRESIDENTIAL FAR— LC-RMD DISTRICT Lot Size Maximum FAR 5,000 sq. ft. or less 0.90 More than 5,000 sq. ft.0.75 - minimum 4,500 sq. ft. 2. Density Bonus for Mixed Use Projects. See Chapter 11.4.55: Affordable Housing Bonus regarding allowable density bonus programs. 3. Residential Development Standards. The residential development standards for the LC-RMD district are as follows. a. Mixed Use Project. May only be located on the second floor in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. b. Residential Project. A residential development shall comply with all other applicable development standards for the RHD-20 district. B. Building Height. Building height requirements are set forth in Table 11.2.10.015.B: Building Height—Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts. Table 11.2.10.015.B Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 13 of 40 BUILDING HEIGHT— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Commercial District Height LC-RMD District Lots less than 37.5 feet in width 30 feet Lots greater than 37.5 feet in width Front ½ of lot 25 feet, 2-story maximum Rear ½ of lot 35 feet, 3-story maximum MC-RHD Within Coastal Zone 50 feet; 4 stories maximum Outside Coastal Zone 65 feet; 5 stories maximum PO District District I 30 feet District II 35 feet MSSP District 25 feet, 2-story maximum SC District District I 30 feet, 3-story maximum District II 35 feet, 3-story maximum 1. Additional Height. Additional height may be allowed at specific locations designated in design guidelines, planned unit developments, or specific plans adopted by the city council. 2. Accessory Commercial Structures. Accessory commercial structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height. See also Section 11.4.05.010: Accessory Business Uses and Activities. 3. Flood Zone Heights. In special flood hazard zones as defined in Title 9: Public Property, Public Works and Building Regulations, Chapter 9.45: Floodplain Management, the maximum building height is increased by the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation. C. Building Setbacks. Building Setbacks from street and alley frontages and interior lot lines are set forth in Table 11.2.10.015.C.1: Building Setbacks from Street Frontages— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts, Table 11.2.10.015.C.2: Building Setbacks from Alleys— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts, and Table 11.2.10.015.C.3: Building Setbacks from Interior Lot Lines— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts. Table 11.2.10.015.C.1 BUILDING SETBACKS FROM STREET FRONTAGES— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Commercial District Street Frontage Building Setback LC-RMD District Commercial Use 6 foot average; 3 foot minimum Side Street 10% lot width; 5 foot maximum Residential Use 12 foot average; 6 foot minimum Side Street 10% lot width; 8 foot maximum MC-RHD Street-facing 10% lot width; 10 ft minimum; 15 ft maximum Street-facing where directly across from an RLD-9 district 15 ft minimum PO District District I 10 feet minimum Side Street 15% lot width; 3 foot minimum; 10 foot maximum District II 18 feet minimum Side Street 15% lot width; 5 foot minimum; 15 foot maximum MSSP District 0 feet Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 14 of 40 SC District District I 0 feet District II 35 feet, 3 story maximum Side Street 15% lot width; 6 foot maximum Rear Street 6 feet minimum GC District District I 0 feet District II 35 feet, 3 story maximum Side Street 15% lot width; 6 foot maximum Rear Street 6 feet minimum District VI 18 feet minimum Table 11.2.10.015.C.2 MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS FROM ALLEYS— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Commercial District Minimum Setback Distance from Alley LC-RMD District Commercial Structure Rear Alley 22 feet Side Alley 4 feet Residential Structure (includes garage) 15 foot wide alley 9 feet 12 foot wide alley 12 feet 13 foot wide alley 11 feet Second Story and Above May encroach ½ the required first floor setback PO District District I 15 foot wide rear alley 9 feet 12 foot wide rear alley 12 feet 13 foot wide rear alley 11 feet Side alley 4 feet District II Rear alley 0 feet Side alley 0 feet MSSP District Rear Alley 22 feet Side Alley 4 feet SC District District I Rear alley 22 feet Side alley 4 feet District II Rear alley 4 feet Side alley 4 feet GC District District I Rear alley 22 feet Side alley 4 feet District II Rear alley 4 feet Side alley 4 feet District VI Rear alley 4 feet Side alley 4 feet Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 15 of 40 Table 11.2.10.015.C.3 BUILDING SETBACKS FROM INTERIOR LOT LINES— COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Commercial District Setback Distance from Interior Lot Lines LC-RMD District Commercial Structure 0 feet Residential Structure (includes garage)3 feet minimum, 10 feet maximum MC-RHD District Side yard 10% lot width; 5 feet minimum; 15 feet maximum Rear yard 6 feet minimum PO District District I Side yard 10% lot width; 10 feet maximum Rear yard 10 feet minimum District II Side yard 10% lot width; 15 feet maximum Rear yard 18 feet minimum MSSP District Side yard 0 feet Rear yard 10% lot width; 10 feet maximum SC District District I Side yard 0 feet Rear yard 10% lot width; 5 feet minimum, 10 feet maximum District II Side yard 0 feet Rear yard 6 feet minimum GC District District I Side yard 0 feet Rear yard 0 feet District II Side yard 0 feet Rear yard 6 feet minimum District VI Side yard 10% lot width; 10 feet maximum Rear yard 18 feet minimum 1. Building Setbacks and Landscaping Adjacent to Front Property Line. a. LC-RMD and MSSP Districts. Buildings in the LC-RMD and MSSP districts shall be located between zero and 10 feet from property lines facing a street, for at least 80% of the linear street frontage of the property. See Figure 11.2.10.015.C.1.a: Building Setback on Streets— LC-RMD and MSSP Districts. Up to 25% of the area between the property line and the building may be landscaped, subject to the following standards; all other setback areas shall be paved for public use. i. Landscaping along the building frontage shall not exceed a depth that prevents pedestrian access up to building windows or detracts from a pedestrian street frontage, generally 2 feet. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 16 of 40 ii. All landscaping shall be integrated into the building; the use of planter boxes at windows is encouraged. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 16 of 40 b. MC-RHD District. Buildings in the MC-RHD district shall be located between 10 and 15 feet from property lines facing a street, for at least 80% of the linear street frontage of the property. The entire front yard (required setback plus any additional open area) not including areas used for exit and entry shall be landscaped, subject to the following standards: i. Native trees 15-gallon in size shall be planted no more than 25 feet on center. Where possible, tress shall be planted in the same configuration as the street trees to create a colonnade along the sidewalk. ii. Shrubs at least 5-gallon in size shall cover at minimum 30% of required landscape area. iii. At-grade landscaping and landscaping in raised planters shall be designed and located to punctuate building entrances and ground level windows and to create strong edges for plazas, patios, courtyards, and pathways. iv. Tree species shall be selected to minimize shedding of flowers, fruit, or other debris over the right-of-way. Where trees do shed debris, the area must be maintained and kept clear of hazards. v. All paving in required setback areas shall be either permeable or pervious. c. PO District. Buildings in the PO district shall be located between zero and 10 feet from property lines facing a street and for at least 70% of the linear street frontage of the property. See Figure 11.2.10.015.C.1.b: Building Setback on Streets— PO District. In the PO district, the area between the property line and the building shall be landscaped, except for pedestrian access walkways. [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 16 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 17 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.C.1.a Building Setback on Streets— LC-RMD and MSSP Districts Figure 11.2.10.015.C.1.b Building Setback on Streets—PO District d. Cross-Visibility Area in all districts. i. Intersection of Driveways and Public Rights-of-Way. No development is allowed within a triangle having two sides 10 feet long and running along the driveway and public right-of-way, with the two 10-foot sides beginning at the intersection and the third side formed by a line connecting the two ends. All measurements shall be from the edge of the curb, or the edge of the vehicular travel area if no curb exists. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 18 of 40 ii. Intersection of Two Public Rights-of-Way. No development is allowed within a triangle having two sides 18 feet long and running along each public right-of-way, with the sides beginning at their intersection and the third side formed by a line connecting the two ends. All measurements shall be from the edge of the curb, or the edge of the vehicular travel area if no curb exists. (The triangle shall be referred to as the “cross-visibility area.”) Figure 11.2.10.015.C.1.c Cross-Visibility Areas D. Minimum Yard Requirements: Building Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts. 1. Residential Setback Shall Apply. For any portion of a structure adjacent to an adjoining residential district boundary along a common side yard boundary the minimum required setbacks of the residential district shall apply. 2. Daylight Plane Requirements. To protect privacy and minimize sunlight blockage, structures shall not intercept a 45-degree daylight plane inclined inward starting from 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line.the following heights: a. 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line in the MC-RHD district along CA-1. b. 50 feet above existing grade at the setback line in the MC-RHD district along all other rights-of-way. c. 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line in all other commercial and mixed-use districts. 3. Exceptions for Parking Structures. Exceptions to the above requirements are permitted for a one-story parking or garage structure that does not exceed 10 feet in height in a side or rear yard that does not front on a street. E. Public Open Space. For buildings over 25,000 square feet in all districts and mixed-use buildings over 10,000 square feet in the MC-RHD district, outdoor open space which is accessible to the public during daytime hours shall be provided at a ratio of 25 square feet per 1,000 non-residential square feet of building. An open space area shall only be counted toward meeting the public open space requirement if it is possible to inscribe a rectangle within such area that has no side less than 15 feet in dimension. Open space(s) shall be visible from a public street and shall be located within 40 feet of the street-facing property line. 1. Exceptions: a. Minor Use Permit Required. A minor use permit is required pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits for a public open space that is not visible from a public street and not located within 40 feet of the street-facing property line. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 19 of 40 b. In the MC-RHD district, residential-only projects are exempt from this requirement. F. Limitations on Location of Parking. 1. Parking Location Generally. Commercial and mixed-use buildings shall be placed as close to the street as possible, with parking located either behind habitable space, on the interior side or rear of the site, underground, or in parking structures. See Figure 11.2.10.015.FG: Limitations on Parking and Curb Cuts. 2. Parking Location—LC-RMD, MC-RHD, PO, and MSSP Districts. Above ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street facing property line in the LC-RMD, MC-RHD, PO, and MSSP districts. a. Exceptions. Exceptions may be granted with the approval of a minor use permit pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits for projects that do not meet this standard, including projects with parking on upper levels. b. Additional Findings. Additional findings for approval of a minor use permit for exceptions to this regulation are as follows: i. The design incorporates habitable space built close to the public sidewalk to the maximum extent feasible; and any parking within 40 feet of the street facing property line is well screened with a wall, hedge, trellis, and/or landscaping. ii. The site is small and constrained such that underground parking or surface parking located more than 40 feet from street frontages is not feasible. 3. Additional Parking Facility Requirements. See Chapter 11.4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading for additional parking facility requirements. 4. Parking and Driveway Design in the MC-RHD District. a. Parking Design. Parking may be located in individually secured “tuck-under” garages; a shared garage (podium or underground); or an above-ground structure “wrapped” with habitable spaces. Detached garages and carports are not allowed. All parking spaces, whether individual or shared, shall be secured. b. Individually secured garages shall be accessed from a shared rear or side drive aisle where such abuts the property. Where individual garages are accessed from the right-of-way, garages shall occupy no more than 50% of the frontage of each unit. Figure 11.2.10.015.F.4.b: Individual Garages c. Parking Visibility. Where structured parking faces the street frontage, the structure must be either: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 20 of 40 i. A maximum of 30% of the building frontage or 60 feet in length (whichever is greater); ii. Recessed a minimum of four feet from the rest of the building façade and screened with a living wall or textured or decorative screening; and iii. Designed such that the parking area is located in a basement, where the vertical distance from grade to the finished floor directly above the parking area is a maximum of 42 inches. Figure 11.2.10.015.F.4.c: Parking Visibility d. Upper-level visibility. All upper-level street-facing structured parking must be screened from view from the right-of-way by at least one of the following features: i. Regular openings designed to resemble windows of habitable spaces; ii. A trellis or living wall; or iii. Textured or decorative screening. Figure 11.2.10.015.G Limitations on Parking and Curb Cuts [[BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 21 of 40 e. Parking garages shall be designed to accommodate large vehicles. The structure shall have a height clearance of a minimum of 8.5 feet. G. Limitations on Curb Cuts. 1. Curb cuts are limited to a maximum of 25 feet of linear frontage for property that does not exceed 10,000 square feet in area. This may be achieved through a combination of 1 or 2 separate Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 22 of 40 curb cuts. See Figure 11.2.10.015.F: Limitations on Parking and Curb Cuts. Curb cut width is measured to include the vehicular access area only, excluding any transition or “wing” sections outside of the area intended for vehicular access. 2. Curb cuts are not allowed on lots that have alley access. 3. Curb cuts shall be located in the location least likely to impede pedestrian circulation and vehicular traffic flow. 4. Additional areas for curb cuts are allowed for properties over 10,000 square feet where it can be demonstrated that additional cuts are necessary to protect pedestrian safety or accommodate total vehicular traffic. 5. Sites abutting an existing or proposed alley. For new developments, proposed new street curb openings or retention of existing street curb openings shall not be permitted for residential property which abuts an alley. All vehicle access shall be from the alley. An exception may be made in the case of corner lots where the street on which the proposed new or existing curb opening is not located on an arterial street and the street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot, subject to the one of the following conditions: 1. A new curb opening from the street shall be permitted where existing utility conditions, that cannot be removed/relocated, prevent alley access and one (1) additional covered non- tandem off-street parking space beyond code required amount is being provided. The proposed new curb opening shall be located to maximize the remaining on-street parking; or 2. An existing curb opening can be maintained or relocated when one (1) additional covered non-tandem off-street parking spaces beyond code required amount is being provided and no loss of on-street parking is proposed. In no case shall there be more than one (1) street curb opening on a residential property that abuts an alley. H. Limitations on Location of Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading, and service areas shall not be located within 50 feet of any residential district boundary or within 40 feet of a street-facing property line. These facilities shall be located at the interior side of buildings or on the rear of the site and be screened so as not to be visible from public streets. Facilities within 150 feet of a residential district shall provide screen walls and sounds attenuation to comply with a noise level of 55 CNEL at the residential district boundary. Exceptions may be granted with approval of a minor use permit pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits, if an alternative location for the truck dock, loading and/or service area better protects the pedestrian environment of the commercial district and/or better shields adjoining residential neighborhoods from noise and visual impacts. 1. Exception—MSSP District. Truck docks are not permitted in the MSSP District. All loading and service shall be accomplished from either Main Street or the alleyways in such a manner as to not impede traffic to the maximum extent practicable. I. Building Orientation. 1. Primary Entrance Toward Public Street. All buildings located along a public street shall be oriented toward, and have their primary entrances toward, the public street. Exception: Minor Use Permit Required. A minor use permit is required pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits for a building located along a public street that is not oriented toward, and does not have their primary entrances toward, the public street. 2. Interior Buildings— Entrance from Sidewalk. All buildings and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from sidewalks that are designed as an extension of the public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk. J. Design Provisions— Main Street Specific Plan District. All buildings in the Main Street Specific Plan District shall meet the following criteria: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 23 of 40 1. Transparency. At sidewalk level, buildings shall be primarily transparent. A minimum of 50% of all first floor façades with street frontage shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The building wall subject to transparency requirements shall include the portion between 3 feet and 10 feet above the sidewalk. Blank walls should be avoided and lively façades encouraged. 2. Glass. All glass in windows and doorways shall be clear for maximizing visibility into stores. A minimal amount of neutral tinting of glass to achieve some sun control is acceptable if the glass appears essentially transparent when viewed from the outside. Opaque and reflecting glass shall not be used. 3. Window Security Bars. Window security bars shall only be allowed if installed on the interior of the window area. 4. Façade Set-Back. Buildings shall be located on or within 4 feet of the street property line. Exceptions shall be: (a) outdoor restaurant seating areas or (b) areas where abutting buildings are, as of the effective date of this title, set back creating in effect continuous store frontages with a wider sidewalk. In the latter case, the abutting buildings’ set back shall be considered the equivalent of the property line. 5. Façade Continuity. Building street façades shall be continuous from lot line to lot line. Parking or loading areas shall not abut Main Street or Ocean Avenue frontages. 6. Façade Width. Façades of interconnecting buildings should retain their individual identity. Buildings should not be remodeled or painted to give the appearance of a single building. Any street side building façade exceeding 50 feet in width shall be segmented into individual designs not exceeding 50 feet in width. 7. Trademark Buildings. Trademark buildings used to house a franchise operation shall be prohibited. K. Open Space Requirements for Residential Uses. A minimum of 100 square feet of open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space. 1. Required Open Space in the MC-RMD District. A minimum of 100 square feet of open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space. 2. Residential Open Space in the MC-RHD District. Residential open space in the MC-RHD district must comply with the standards of Table 11.2.10.015, Development Standards— Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts as well as the following standards. a. Private Open Space Design. The minimum dimension of any private open space is eight feet for ground-level units or units directly over podium parking, and six feet for any upper-level units. b. Common Open Space Design. i. The minimum dimension of any common open space shall be 15 feet. ii. Common open spaces may be at-grade, elevated, on parking podiums, or on rooftops, provided they are accessible to all living units on the development site by a stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. iii. Common open space may be designed as landscaped areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, parklets, dog parks, or other such improvements that enhance the outdoor environment of the development. iv. Surfaces of common open spaces may be any combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other dust-free surfacing. No more than 70percent of common open area may be hardscaped. v. The slope of common open space shall not exceed 10%. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 24 of 40 3. All required roof deck railings in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code shall not exceed the height limit provisions of Table 11.2.10.015. The provisions of Section 11.2.10.015.O: Projections, are not applicable to roof decks. L. Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses. In order to provide light and air for residential units, the following minimum setbacks apply for any side or rear yard not fronting a street. When the site is adjacent to a residential district, the standards of subsection 11.2.10.015.D—Minimum Yard Requirements: Building Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts, above also apply, and the project must comply with whichever standard is stricter. The length of the required setbacks must be at least the width of the window plus 3 feet on either side and never less than 10 feet: 1. 5 feet for any wall with windows. 2. 10 feet for any wall with bedroom or kitchen windows. 3. 15 feet for any wall with living room or other primary windows. 4. The building shall be set back 1 foot for every 2 feet of height above 50 feet in the MC-RHD district and above 35 feet in all other commercial and mixed-use districts. See Figure 11.2.10.015.L: Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses in Mixed Use Zones. [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 24 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 25 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.L Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses in Mixed Use Zones M. Consistency with Design Guidelines, Specific Plans, or Area Plans Adopted by the City Council. All projects shall be consistent with any design guidelines, planned unit developments, specific plans, or other similar documents that give specific guidance for development on private property and public improvements. N. Pedestrian Access to Buildings Set Back from the Street. If a minor use permit is approved for buildings in the LC/RMD, MSSP, or MSSPMC-RHD Districts set back farther than the minimum 10-foot setback requirement, the following standards shall apply: 1. To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial and mixed-use projects to adjoining neighborhood residential and commercial areas. These connections shall remain accessible at all times and not be gated. 2. To Street Network. Pedestrian access from the public right-of-way to the primary uses on the site shall occur as often as necessary to connect the on-site walkways and the public sidewalk. Landscape strips shall be crossed for pedestrian access at regular intervals. When pedestrian access to a site is in the same location as automobile entries (i.e., at driveways), the auto and pedestrian paths shall be separated from each other by a curb. The pedestrian access shall be integrated with the parking lot landscaping so as to provide a shaded walkway. 3. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances with public sidewalk and pedestrian walkways. Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pull- outs” may be required at potential bus stops. 4. Pedestrian Walkway Design. a. Primary pedestrian routes and access points shall be specially treated and include trees at regular intervals, adequate lighting, and paving that distinguishes pedestrian from automobile areas. A minimum 5-foot wide clear walkway is required to ensure pedestrian safety. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 26 of 40 b. All dedicated pedestrian routes, including those through parking areas, shall be separated from automobile routes by a curb. O. Projections. Projections into yards are permitted subject to the following standards: 1. Projections into Required Yards. Projections into required yards are permitted subject to the following standards: a. Architectural Features. a. Architectural Features in the MC-RHD district. Architectural features such as bay windows 8 feet or less in length, cornices, eaves, canopies, and chimneys may not: i. Extend closer than 3 feet to any interior side or rear lot line. ii. Project more than 3 feet into any required street-facing setback. b. Architectural Features in all other commercial and mixed-use zones. Architectural features, such as bay windows not exceeding 10 feet in length, cornices, eaves, canopies, and chimneys may not extend closer than 3 feet to any side lot line or more than 4 feet into any required front or rear setback. 2. Stairs, Decks, and Balconies. a. Stairs, Decks and Balconies in the MC-RHD district. Open, uncovered stair landings, decks and balconies 12 feet or less in length and less than 6 feet above grade may not be located within 3 feet from any interior side or rear lot line, nor project more than 3 feet into any required street-facing setback, b. Stairs, Decks and Balconies in all other commercial and mixed-use zones. Open uncovered stair landings, decks, and balconies 12 feet or less in length and less than 6 feet above grade may not extend closer than 3 feet to any side lot line or more than 4 feet into any required front or rear setback. (Ord. 1658; Ord. 1598) P. Design Standards in the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC-RHD) Zone. All buildings in the MC-RHD district shall meet the following criteria: 1. Block Standards. The maximum block length of new blocks is 500 feet or 800 feet long when an alley is provided through the block. a. The new through streets may become dedicated rights-of-way or remain private roads so long as the streets are publicly accessible. b. All new streets must include continuous sidewalks and bike lanes. 2. Building Separation. The minimum distance between buildings walls with front doors or primary living room windows shall be 20 feet. 3. Street-Facing Building Step-backs. a. All street-facing building facades must be stepped-back at the fourth story and above by a minimum six horizontal feet from the ground floor façade. b. Where facing an RL district on the opposite site of the right-of-way, the third story and above zone must be stepped back a minimum eight feet from the ground floor façade. c. A sixth story may be allowed provided that the top three stories contain a minimum step- back of 40 feet from the ground floor façade and that the elevated space provided by the step- back is usable and landscaped. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 26 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 27 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.P.2: Street-Facing Step-backs 4. Vertical Articulation. a. Building facades up to 75 feet in length along a right-of-way must be separated into façade bays no greater than 35 feet in width defined by a recess a minimum of 5 feet in depth and two or more of the following: i. A change in roof parapet height or shape; ii. A change in roof form and slope; or iii. A change in building height with a minimum difference of 8 vertical feet. Figure 11.2.10.015.P.3.a: Vertical Articulation – Facades up to 75 Feet in Length b. When a building facade exceeds 75 feet in length along a right-of-way, it must be separated into façade bays no greater than 50 feet in width defined by a recess a minimum of 8 feet in depth and two or more of the following: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 28 of 40 i. A change in roof parapet height or shape; ii. A change in roof form and slope; or iii. A change in building height with a minimum difference of 8 vertical feet. Figure 11.2.10.015.P.3.b: Vertical Articulation – Facades over 75 Feet in Length [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 28 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 29 of 40 5. Roof Form and Design. a. Allowed Roof Forms. Roof forms shall be limited to: i. Hipped ii. Gable iii. Dormers where dormers do not exceed 8 feet in length, iv. Parapet (a) Parapet segments may not exceed 25 feet in length without interruption in height or form. (b) Parapets may take the form of a false gable enclosing a flat roof. v. Roof-line balustrade. b. Pitch. The pitch of the roof must be 3:12 to 5:12 ratio. Solar roofs and other Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) roof designs are exempt if needed to achieve a net zero energy consumption result on site. c. Eaves. Where eaves exceed 18 inches in depth, exterior brackets or beams are required. 6. Building Entrances. a. Entry location. i. Each street-facing building façade must have at least one pedestrian entry into the structure. ii. All ground floor dwelling units located along public rights-of-way, public open space, or internal pathways must have a primary entrance, either individual or shared, facing a public street, open space, or pathway. iii. Primary entrances to ground floor dwelling units internal to a site may face an internal drive aisle or pathway. Such units must be designed so that the primary entryway is visible from a pedestrian pathway connected to a street. iv. Street-facing non-residential building façades must incorporate at least one ground floor Shopfront entrance per 50 linear feet of building frontage (see 11.2.10.015.c.iv below).The Shopfront entrance may be paired with a Terrace entrance (see 11.2.10.015.c.iii below. b. Entry protection. All building entrances must have a roofed projection or recess with a minimum depth of four feet and a minimum horizontal area of 24 square feet. c. Entry types. Building entries must take one of the following forms: i. Stoop. (1) Width of stoop: Minimum 5 feet, maximum 12 feet (2) Depth of stoop: Minimum 5 feet, maximum 8 feet (3) Finish floor level above sidewalk: Minimum 18 inches (4) Projection depth: Minimum 5 feet, maximum 8 feet (5) Clear height to projection: Minimum 8 feet Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 30 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.P.5.c.i: Stoop ii. Dooryard. (1) Width of usable yard area: Minimum 6 feet (2) Depth of dooryard from door: Minimum 4 feet, maximum 8 feet (3) Projection depth: Maximum 6 feet (4) Height of enclosure: Maximum 3 feet. (5) Clear height to projection: Minimum 8 feet, maximum 12 feet Figure 11.2.10.015.P.5.c.ii: Dooryard iii. Terrace. (1) Width of terrace: Maximum 120 feet (2) Depth of terrace: Minimum 8 feet (3) Distance of between entry stairs: Maximum 50 feet (4) Finish floor level above sidewalk: Minimum 24 inches; maximum 5 feet (5) The at-grade areas, not including areas used for exit and entry, shall be landscaped. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 31 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.P.5.c.iii: Terrace iv. Shopfront. (1) Combined recess/projection depth: Minimum 4 feet (2) Projection setback from curb: Minimum 2 feet (3) Clear height: Minimum 8 feet (4) Finish floor level above sidewalk: Maximum 12 inches (5) Shopfront width: Minimum 6 feet, maximum 20 feet (6) Shopfront entrances are allowed for non-residential uses only. (7) On buildings with street frontages exceeding 50 feet in length, shopfront frontages must incorporate: A recess a maximum depth of 4 feet and minimum width of 6 feet to provide additional window display space; and Variations in building base, awnings, materials, and/or color to visually articulate individual shopfronts. Figure 11.2.10.015.P.5.c.iv: Shopfront c. Separation of Residential and Non-residential Entrances. Entrances to residential units, either shared or common, shall be a minimum 30 horizontal feet from commercial entrances. d. Upper Floor Entrances. Exterior stairs to upper units are not permitted. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 32 of 40 7. Ground Floor Design. a. Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a ground floor garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making authority in the review process. b. Finished Floor Height for Residential Uses. The maximum finished floor height for ground floor residential uses is five feet above grade. 8. Window and Door Design. a. Window Recess and Trim. All windows must be either: i. Recessed a minimum of 1 inch from the outer wall surface with trim at least 2 inches in width; or ii. Recessed a minimum of 3 inches from the outer wall surface. [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 32 of 40 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 33 of 40 Figure 11.2.10.015.P.7.a: Window Design b. Exterior Doors. Exterior doors must include raised panels, glass, transom windows, or other forms of details and articulation and must be inset a minimum of 3 inches from the building façade. 9. Residential Unit Design. a. Affordable Unit Design. Affordable units and market rate units in the same development shall be constructed of the same or similar exterior materials and details such that the units are not distinguishable. b. Universal Design. For residential projects with at least 10 dwelling units, a minimum 15% of the units must adhere to the following principles of Universal Design. At minimum, this includes: i. At least one entrance without steps and a flat threshold. ii. Living space on one floor or stair landings big enough to accept lifts. iii. Wide interior doors (32-inch clear, typically provided with 36-inch door), hallways, and alcoves with 60 by 60-inch turning space at doors, in kitchens, and dead ends. iv. At least one bathroom must be located on the ground level. v. A 30 by 48-inch clear space at appliances and fixtures in bathrooms and kitchens. 10. Exterior Lighting. a. Fixtures. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be a cutoff fixture oriented downward, and certified by the International Dark Sky Association to prevent light intrusion into adjacent building use and sensitive habitat such as riparian habitat, streams, and wetlands. b. Controls. All exterior lighting must be capable of accepting controls that enable dimmers, timers motion sensors, or networking to avoid unnecessary lighting and energy use, especially in areas adjacent to sensitive habitat, such as riparian habitat, streams, and wetlands. c. Exterior Building Lighting. Ground-floor building façades, an adjacent four-foot-wide zone, and signage shall be illuminated with lighting fixtures that are placed: i. Every 40 feet or less for all building façades to illuminate the sidewalk along primary and secondary streets. ii. Every 30 feet or less for all building façades facing public open spaces and pathways. iii. Every 20 feet or less for all ground floor blank walls. d. Electrical elements such as wires, conduits, and panel boxes shall be concealed from public view or painted to match the background surface color. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 34 of 40 e. Other On-site Lighting. i. Driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, and recesses, shall achieve a minimum one foot-candle of illumination at ground level. ii. Lighting shall be designed and installed so that light and glare is not directed onto residential use areas, adjacent public rights-of-way, or sensitive habitat, such as riparian habitat, streams, and wetlands. f. Prohibited Lighting. The following types of exterior lighting are prohibited: a. Mercury vapor luminaires; b. Searchlights; e. Aerial lasers. d. Lighting with a color temperature that exceeds 4000 kelvin. 11. Signage. a. All monument signage shall be consistent with the design of the primary building in terms of materials and colors. b. Signage in mixed-use areas shall be provided and located to facilitate access to structured parking for all abutting rights-of-way. 12. Design in the Coastal Zone of the MC-RHD District. Development in the Coastal Zones is subject to the requirements of the Seal Beach Local Coastal Program.13. Refuse Areas. a. All refuse areas shall be accessible. b. Refuse areas shall not be visible from rights-of-ways. c. Refuse areas shall be a minimum of 10 feet from all building entrances. SECTION 11.4.85.015 OF CHAPTER 11.34.85 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.4.85.015 Residential Use Classifications. A. Residential Housing Types. 1. Single Unit Dwelling. One dwelling unit, attached or detached, located on a single lot. This use includes manufactured housing but not mobile homes. 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An attached or detached accessory residential dwelling unit per state law that provides complete independent living facilities for 1 or more persons and is located on the same lot as a primary, single-family dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same lot as the primary dwelling. See Section 11.4.05.115: Accessory Dwelling Units in Chapter 11.4.05: Standards for Specific Uses. 3. Two-Unit Dwelling (Duplex). A single building that contains 2 primary dwelling units, or a single lot with 2 freestanding buildings, each of which is designed for occupancy by one household. 4. Multiple Unit Residential. Three or more dwelling units on a single site or lot. Types of multiple- family dwellings include: townhouses, garden apartments, and other apartment buildings. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 35 of 40 ,,B.B.Emergency Shelter. A temporary, short-term residence providing housing with minimal supportive services for families or individual persons where occupancy is limited to six months or less, as defined in Section 50801 of the California Health and Safety Code. Medical assistance, counseling, and meals may be provided. (See Government Code Section 65583.) Emergency shelter may include other interventions, including, but not limited to, a low-barrier navigation center, transitional housing, and respite or recuperative care. C. Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the California State Department of Social Services that is located in a single-family residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and supervision for children. 1. Small Family. A facility which provides care for 8 or fewer children. 2. Large Family. A facility which provides care for 7 to 14 children. CD. Group Housing. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories, and private residential clubs, offering shared living quarters, but excludes hotels, residential care facilities and transitional housing facilities. DE. Senior Citizen Housing. Housing that is available only to households occupied by senior citizens, qualifying residents, and permitted health care residents, subject to the limitations of Civil Code Section 51.3 or any successor statute. Notwithstanding the foregoing, residents of senior citizen housing may host guests that are not senior citizens, qualifying residents, or permitted health care residents, for up to 60 days per year. EF. Transitional Housing. Establishments providing temporary housing in a structured living environment and where residents have access to various voluntary support services, such as health, mental health, education and employment/training services to obtain skills necessary for independent living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bath facilities for each room or unit. The occupancy period shall be at least 30 days. This category excludes temporary housing that does not include support services and community social service facilities such as emergency shelters. (Ord. 1699; Ord. 1598) SECTION 11.4.85.025 OF CHAPTER 11.4.85 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 11.4.85.025 Commercial Use Classifications. A. Animal Sales and Services. Retail sales and services of animals, including grooming, and/or veterinary care for animals on a commercial basis. This classification allows 24-hour accommodation of animals receiving medical or grooming services but does not include kennels. This classification also excludes dog walking and similar pet care services not carried out at a fixed location, and retail stores selling pet supplies only. B. Kennel. Facilities for keeping, boarding, training, breeding or maintaining for commercial purposes, 4 or more dogs, cats, or other household pets not owned by the kennel owner or operator. This classification excludes pet shops and animal hospitals that provide 24-hour accommodation of animals receiving medical or grooming services. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 36 of 40 C. Artists’ Studios. Work space for artists and artisans, including individuals practicing one of the fine arts or performing arts, or skilled in an applied art or craft. Incidental retail sales of items produced on the premises is required. D. Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services. 1. Automobile Rentals. Rental of automobiles, including storage and incidental maintenance. 2. Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing. Sales or leasing of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and/or lawn and garden-type tractors, including storage and incidental maintenance. 3. Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major. Repair of automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles, including the sale, installation, and servicing of related equipment and parts. This classification includes auto repair, body and fender, transmission, tire, muffler, and wheel and brake shops, as well as auto glass services, but excludes vehicle dismantling or salvaging and tire re-treading or recapping. 4. Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor. Establishments engaged in the retail sale of gas or diesel fuel, lubricants, parts, and accessories, including gasoline service stations; gas convenience marts; quick-service oil, tune-up; and tire sales and installation, where repairs are made or service provided in enclosed bays and vehicles are not typically stored overnight. This classification excludes establishments providing engine repair, body and fender work, vehicle painting, and repair of heavy trucks or construction vehicles. 5. Automobile Washing. Washing, waxing, or cleaning of automobiles or similar light vehicles. 6. Large Vehicle Sales, Service, and Rental. Sales, servicing, and rental of trucks, motor homes, recreational trailers and equipment, boats, and other similar vehicles. E. Banks and Other Financial Institutions. Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, including credit unions, and businesses offering check-cashing facilities. 1. With Drive-Through Facilities. Financial institutions providing retail banking services to patrons remaining in automobiles. 2. Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). Automated devices that perform banking or financial functions operated by the consumer. F. Bed and Breakfasts. Establishments providing guest rooms for lodging on a less-than-weekly basis, within a single-family dwelling, with incidental eating and drinking service provided from a single kitchen for lodgers and residents only. G. Building Materials and Services. Retailing, wholesaling, or rental of building supplies or equipment. This classification includes lumber yards, tool and equipment sales or rental establishments and includes establishments devoted principally to taxable retail sales to individuals for their own use. This definition does not include building contractors’ yards, large-scale “warehouse” stores (see Home Improvement Sales and Services), hardware stores with less than 10,000 square feet in floor area, or plant nurseries. H. Business Services. Establishments that primarily provide goods and services to other businesses on a fee or contract basis, including printing and copying, blueprint services, advertising and mailing, equipment rental and leasing, office security, custodial services, photo finishing, and model building. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 37 of 40 I. Commercial Recreation. Provision of participant or spectator recreation to the general public, excluding public park and recreation facilities. 1. Large-Scale. This classification includes large indoor or outdoor facilities including: sports stadiums and arenas; amusement and theme parks; bowling centers; racetracks; amphitheatres; driving ranges not in conjunction with a golf course; large fitness centers, gymnasiums, handball, racquetball, or tennis club facilities greater than 20,000 square feet; ice or roller skating rinks; swimming or wave pools; miniature golf courses; archery or indoor shooting ranges; riding stables; campgrounds; stables, etc. This classification may include restaurants, snack bars, and other incidental food and beverage services to patrons. 2. Small-Scale. This classification includes small, generally indoor facilities, although some facilities may be outdoor, including: billiard parlors, dance halls, gymnasiums, handball, racquetball, or tennis club facilities less than 20,000 square feet, poolrooms, and amusement arcades. This classification may include restaurants, snack bars, and other incidental food and beverage services to patrons. J. Eating and Drinking Establishments. Businesses primarily engaged in serving prepared food and/or beverages for consumption on or off the premises. 1. Bars. Businesses serving beverages for consumption on the premises as a primary use and including on-sale service of beer. 2. Restaurants, Fast Food. Establishments where ready-to-eat prepared foods and beverages are: (a) sold for immediate consumption on- or off-premises; (b) are available upon a short waiting time; and (c) are packaged and served in or on disposable wrappers, containers, or plates. Fast-food restaurants may also exhibit other design and operating characteristics, including: a limited menu, food is paid for prior to consumption, the facility in which the activity/use is occurring provides a take-out counter space and substantial delineated area for customer queuing, employees generally wear a standard uniform, and the facility has late or long hours of operation. 3. Restaurants, Full Service. Restaurants providing food and beverage services to patrons who order and are served while seated and pay after eating. Takeout service may be provided. 4. Restaurants, Limited Service. EstablishmentsAn establishment where food and beverages are prepared and may be consumed on the premises, taken out, or delivered, but where nolimited table service is provided and patrons pay before eating. This classification includes . Includes cafes, cafeterias, delis, coffee shops, and snack bars but excludesdelicatessens, fast-food restaurants and take-out only, sandwich shops, limited-service pizza parlors, self-service restaurants, and snack bars with indoor or outdoor seating for customers. This classification includes bakeries that have tables for on-site consumption of products. Excludes drive-through establishments. 5. Restaurants, Take-Out Only. Establishments where food and beverages are prepared and may be taken out or delivered, but may not be consumed on the premises. No seating is provided on the premises. 6. With Drive-Through Facilities. Establishments providing food and beverage services to patrons remaining in automobiles. Includes drive-up service. 7. With Outdoor Eating Areas. Provision of outdoor dining facilities on the same property or in the adjacent public right-of-way. K. Food and Beverage Sales. Retail sales of food and beverages for off-site preparation and consumption. Typical uses include markets, groceries, liquor stores, and retail bakeries. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 38 of 40 1. Catering Services. Preparation and delivery of food and beverages for off-site consumption without provision for on-site pickup or consumption. 2. Convenience Market. Retail establishments that sell a limited line of groceries, prepackaged food items, tobacco, magazines, and other household goods, primarily for off-premises consumption and typically found in establishments with long or late hours of operation and a relatively small building. This classification includes small retail stores located on the same parcel as or operated in conjunction with a service station but does not include delicatessens or specialty food shops. It excludes establishments which have a sizeable assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables or fresh cut meat. 3. General Market. Retail markets of food and grocery items for primarily offsite consumption. Typical uses include supermarkets, and specialty food stores such as bakeries, candy, nuts and confectionary stores, meat or produce markets, vitamin and health food stores, cheese stores and delicatessens. 4. Liquor Stores. Establishments primarily engaged in selling packaged alcoholic beverages such as ale, beer, wine and liquor. L. Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries. An establishment primarily engaged in the provision of services involving the care, preparation, or disposition of the human dead. Typical uses include a crematory, columbarium, mausoleum, or mortuary. M. Home Improvement Sales and Services. Retail sales, rental, and related services of hardware, plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, building supplies, lumber, tools and equipment, plants and garden products, rocks and soils, patio furniture, swimming pools, spas and hot tubs, lighting fixtures, kitchen and bathroom fixtures and cabinets, paint, carpeting, floor coverings, or wallpaper. This use classification does not include hardware stores with less than 10,000 square feet of area, or plant nurseries. See also subsection W: Retail Sales, of this section. N. Hotels and Motels. Establishments offering lodging to transient patrons. These establishments may provide additional services, such as conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, or recreation facilities available to guests or to the general public. This classification includes motor lodges, motels, hostels, extended-stay hotels, and tourist courts, but does not include rooming hotels, boarding houses, or residential hotels designed or intended to be used for sleeping for a period of 30 consecutive days or longer. This classification also excludes bed and breakfast facilities and similar accommodations that an occupant of single-family housing provides on the same premises incidental to the primary residential use of the property. O. Laboratories. Establishments providing medical or dental laboratory services or establishments providing photographic, analytical, research and development or testing services. P. Live/Work Unit. An artist, commercial or industrial unit with incidental residential accommodations that includes adequate working space reserved for artist, commercial or industrial use and regularly used for such purpose by one or more persons residing in the unit and a cooking space and sanitary facilities in conformance with applicable building standards. Up to 50% of the gross floor area may be reserved for and primarily used as living space. Q. Maintenance and Repair Services. Establishments providing appliance repair, office machine repair, janitorial services, or building maintenance services. This classification excludes maintenance and repair of vehicles or boats and pest control services. R. Offices, Business and Professional. Offices of firms or organizations providing professional, executive, management, or administrative services, such as accounting, advertising, architectural, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 39 of 40 computer software design, engineering, graphic design, insurance, interior design, investment, and legal offices. This classification excludes hospitals, banks, and savings and loan associations. Walk-in Clientele. Offices of firms or organizations providing services to the public that rely on heavy pedestrian activity and constant visits by clients, including real estate offices, landlord-tenant services, credit counseling, and financial tax services. S. Offices, Medical and Dental. Offices of firms or organizations providing medical or dental services, such as physicians, dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, and similar medical professionals. This classification includes medical/dental laboratories within medical office buildings but excludes clinics or independent research laboratory facilities. T. Parking Facilities, Commercial. Surface lots and structures offering parking to the public for a fee when such use is not incidental to another activity. U. Personal Improvement Services. Provision of instructional services or related facilities, including photography; fine arts; crafts; dance or music studios; driving schools; business and trade schools; diet centers, reducing salons, single-purpose fitness studios such as yoga studios or aerobics studios. This classification is intended for more small-scale storefront locations and is distinguishable from small-scale commercial recreation uses that tend to occupy larger sites and generate more noise. This classification does not include massage exceptAn establishment that offers specialized programs in personal growth and development such as music, martial arts, photography, vocal, fitness, yoga, dancing, and academic tutoring. Attendance is typically limited to hourly classes rather than full-day instruction. These establishments do not grant diplomas or degrees, though instruction could provide credits for diplomas or degrees granted by other institutions. Retail sales are permitted as an accessory use. Massage, Accessory. A use where massages occur as an accessory to a personal improvement services use, either permanently or temporarily, and the area where the massage occurs occupies less than 20% of the gross floor area of the principal personal improvement services use. V. Personal Services. Provision of recurrently needed services of a personal nature. This classification includes barber and beauty shops, seamstresses, tailors, dry cleaning agents (excluding large-scale bulk cleaning plants), shoe repair shops, self-service laundries, and travel agencies. This classification does not include massage except as an accessory use. Massage, Accessory. A use where massages occur as an accessory to a personal services use, either permanently or temporarily, and the area where the massage occurs occupies less than 20% of the gross floor area of the principal personal services use. W. Retail Sales. The retail sale and rental of merchandise not specifically listed under another use classification. This classification includes drug stores, pharmacies, department stores, clothing stores, furniture stores, pawn shops, pet supply shops, hardware stores, video rental stores, and businesses retailing goods including: toys, hobby materials, handcrafted items, jewelry, cameras, photographic supplies and services (including portraiture and retail photo processing), medical supplies and equipment, electronic equipment, records, sporting goods, kitchen utensils, hardware (under 10,000 square feet of sales area), appliances, antiques, art supplies and services, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, office supplies, bicycles, and new automotive parts and accessories (excluding vehicle service and installation). Retail sales may be combined with other services such as office machine, computer, electronics, and similar small-item repairs. Large Format. Retail establishments having over 20,000 square feet of sales area with a primary façade over 100 feet in length that sells merchandise and bulk goods for individual consumption, including membership warehouse clubs and superstores. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. City of Seal Beach Zoning Amendments – Hearing Draft Page 40 of 40 X. Tattoo Parlors. Facilities that apply tattoos to the human body. Y. Theaters. Live and motion picture theaters. (Ord. 1598) [BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF SEAL BEACH JULY 8, 1996 Amended December 9, 2024 Amended October 27, 2025 Main Street Specific Plan Zucker Systems ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Council Planning Commission Mayor Gwen Forsythe Chairperson Patti Campbell Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Hastings Vice-Chairman Brian Brown Councilman George E. Brown Commissioner Anton Dahlman Councilman Bill Doane Commissioner Mary Law Councilman Frank Laszlo* Commissioner Jim Sharp Councilwoman Patti Campbell City Staff Consultants Joanne Yeo, City Clerk Zucker Systems, San Diego Jerry Bankston, City Manager** Paul C. Zucker, President Keith R. Till, City Manager Laurie Price, Planner Lee Whittenberg, Director of Ryan McAweeney, Development Services Graphic Designer Barry Curtis, Assistant Planner Amy Becker Dept. of Development Services Administration Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary, Dept. of Development Services Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Costa Mesa Jack Greenspan, P.E. Jay Nelson ___________________ *Former Member of City Council **Formerly with City Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan i Zucker Systems TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….…....….…….1 A. Vision…………………………………………………………....….……1 B. Statutory Authority……………………………………….………………3 C. Relation to the General Plan……………………………………………..3 D. Relation to the Zoning Code and Other City Ordinances……….……….4 2. LAND USE…………………………………………………………….……5 3. BUILDING AND DESIGN PROVISIONS………………………………..13 4. MAIN STREET OUTDOOR PROGRAM……………………...………22 5. PARKING AND TRAFFIC…………………………….….…………37 A. Parking……………………………………………….……….……37 B. Traffic………………………………………………..…….………40 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES…………………………...…………………50 A. Street Trees……………………………………………………...50 B. Utility Lines and Poles………………………………………….52 C. Benches…………………………………….……………………52 D. Street Lighting………………………………………………….53 E. Bicycle Facilities……………………………………………..…53 Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan ii Zucker Systems F. Landscaping…………………………………………………..…53 G. Signs on Public Sidewalks……………………………………...54 H. Other Public Facilities……………………………………….....55 I. Outdoor Uses on Public Sidewalks……………………………….55 7. SCREENING OF PRIVATE PARKING LOTS……………..……..56 8. DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT………………………………….58 9. RELATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE GENERAL PLAN 60 Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan iii Zucker Systems APPENDIX BACKGROUND STUDIES…………...……………………..(Separate Document) LIST OF TABLES 1. 1994 Street Level Land Use by Type and Number of Businesses within Specific Boundary…………………………………….6 2. Establishments Serving Alcohol by Type of License………………………..8 3. Outdoor Uses Development Standards…………………………...……...25 4. Parking Inventory…………………………………….…...………….37 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Main Street Specific Plan Boundary…………………………………….….2 2. Street Trees………………………………………………………….….51 3. Parking Lot Screening………………………………………………….57 Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 1 Zucker Systems 1. INTRODUCTION A. Vision The Main Street Specific Plan has been prepared by the City of Seal Beach to provide a long range “vision" and implementing actions for the preservation and enhancement of downtown Seal Beach. The Plan applies to the approximately 21 acres shown on Figure 1. It includes the previous C-1 zoning district surrounding Main Street, the previous C-2 zone at the corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and related public uses. The regulatory portions of the Specific Plan are implemented through the creation of a new Main Street Specific Plan Zone (C-SP Zone) in the City's Zoning Code. This Plan revises a Main Street Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in January 1976. It builds on a report prepared by the Downtown Parking and Urban Design Task Force in 1984. The current Plan is the result of studies conducted in 1994 and 1995. The study included numerous interviews, an opinion survey sent to 1,200 residents and businesses with a 50% return, detailed parking counts, an up -to-date land use survey, and various other field studies. The Plan is based on the following vision: VISION The Main Street area is particularly important because it is a cohesive agent for a city that is geographically fragmented. The vision for Main Street is small town America. Important features include a family town with friendly people who care for each other. A pedestrian oriented area where people walk and feel safe on the street at night. An area with both architectural and economic diversity with a mix of offices and businesses. Main Street is surrounded by an area of mixed housing types and institutions, creating a complete small town community. Although it is recognized that the area will have businesses that serve both residents and visitors, the goal is to not have visitor serving uses overwhelm the area at the expense of the small-town character. It is also recognized that when the wea ther and beach conditions are attractive, the demand for parking may exceed the supply. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 2 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 3 Zucker Systems The differential standards used in the Main Street Specific Plan may seem to some as unfair in relation to the rest of the City. However, the VISION clearly establishes the importance of Main Street and justifies its differential treatment. What would Seal Beach be like without Main Street? The Plan recognizes Main Street as the heart and soul of Seal Beach. What makes a community special is often the very same factor that causes pressure for change. The more charming a town appears, the greater the demand upon the community from the outside. The need to serve the visitor brings with it new businesses that can change the character of the town. Main streets like Seal Beach's have disappeared all over the country. Typical issues include: If they become very tourist popular, tourist uses and chain stores out bid local uses, driving up the rents and driving out local uses. Traditional small one-of-a-kind stores have trouble competing with the big box retailers and chain stores. The Main Street Specific Plan is designed to address these issues. B. Statutory Authority The Specific Plan is authorized by Article 8 of the California Government Code (Section 65450 et. seq.) and this document meets the requirements as specified in Section 65451. C. Relation to the General Plan The Specific Plan carries out the objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan. It provides the detailed criteria for development of specific sites and public improvements. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 4 Zucker Systems The Specific Plan is relatively high in the land use hierarchy, coming just below the General Plan. Zoning, subdivisions, public works projects and development agreements all must be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. The Plan creates a bridge between General Plan policies and individual development proposals. Specific language relating the Specific Plan to the General Plan is included in Chapter 8. D. Relation to the Zoning Code and Other City Ordinances The regulatory portions of the Specific Plan have been incorporated into the City's Zoning Code and are also repeated in this Specific Plan document. Therefore, the City's Zoning Code or other City ordinances, including those ordinances amended or enacted as part of this adoption of this Specific Plan, continue to apply to the Main Street Specific Plan area. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 5 Zucker Systems 2. LAND USE The small town village charm of Seal Beach's Main Street area comes from a variety of factors including the eclectic mix of architecture, constrained area (only three blocks long), and relation to the ocean. However, of major importance, if not the single most important element, is the mix of uses in close proximity to one another. Within the area there are 107 commercial parcels. Along Main Street and immediately adjacent to Ocean, Central and Electric Avenues there are 121 existing businesses located at street level. 38 office suites are situated on the second and third floors above Main Street. The 1994 land use is shown in a separate Background Studies report. The commercial uses are the key to the area's special character. The commercial center has been able to retain its small town character due to those businesses that depend on and support the adjoining residential development. These uses are traditionally found in a small town, village center. It is important that they be retained and other similar uses be encouraged to establish on Main Street whenever possible. In Seal Beach these uses include: grocery store, financial institution, hardware store, Post Office, drug store, movie theater, and nursery. Additional land uses such as bookstores, video rentals, newspaper, cafes, doctor's offices, barber shops etc. are also essential to a small town character. Table 1 summarizes the 1994 land use. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 6 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 7 Zucker Systems Businesses that serve the residential community of Seal Beach also receive a percentage of their business from the visitors to the community, and in some cases without the visitors' business, they might not be able to survive. Part of Seal Beach's old town charm is the close proximity of its residential development to the commercial establishments. This arrangement is highly desirable. Frequently, the biggest conflict between a commercial center and an adjoining residential neighborhood is between the residents and the nearby eating and drinking establishments. In the Main Street area of Seal Beach there are 23 restaurants of which 14 serve liquor, see Table 2. Also there are two bars which serve no food and three other businesses licensed to sell liquor for off-premise consumption. Table 2 also indicates which eating establishments serve alcoholic beverages and their closing hours. A majority of the establishments are licensed to sell only beer and wine, and generally close between ten and eleven o'clock in the evening. The two bars and four restaurants with general liquor licenses (permitted to sell distilled alcohol as well as beer and wine) are allowed to stay open later. All establishments are closed by 2:00 am. The Main Street business area is located in Census Tract 995.05, which is identified by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as being “overconcentrated”. Overconcentration is a guideline utilized by the ABC to determine if additional alcoholic beverage licenses should be issued in that area. Seal Beach requires a “conditional use permit” for any alcoholic beverage type of sal e, and the City can consider the potential impact of an “overconcentration” of ABC licenses during the public hearing process. Without a conditional use permit approval from the City, ABC will not issue a new alcoholic beverage sales license within the City. Based on 1990 U.S. Census population information, Census Tract 995.05 would support a total of 13 on- and off-premise licenses, with the tract currently having 33 licensed location, 20 of which are within the Main Street Specific Plan Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 8 Zucker Systems area. Those alcohol serving businesses with the Main Street Specific Plan area are set forth in Table 2, following. POLICY 1. Create a New Main Street Specific Plan Zone (Article 12.5, Section 28-1250 and 28-1251, C-SP Zone) Section 28-1250. Permitted Uses. A. Permitted Uses 1) Barbershops and beauty parlors; 2) Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments provided there is seating for no more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 9 Zucker Systems establishment does not exceed 1,000 sq. ft (See subparagraph (14) for additional information regarding permitted outdoor accessory uses under the Outdoor Program); 3) Financial institutions; 4) General retail businesses such as grocery store, furniture store, etc.; 5) Horticultural Nursery; 6) Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 7) Medical offices and laboratories not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 8) Prescription pharmacies; 9) Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (2 nd floor and above only); 10) Professional offices not facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue; 11) Service businesses dealing directly with consumers (dressmaker, nail shop, tailor, etc); 12) Accessory buildings and structures; and 13) Other similar uses when determined by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted uses within the zone. 14) Outdoor uses under the Outdoor Program including administrative approval of Outdoor Uses Permit and encroachment permit (See Policy 4.5 for additional information and requirements). 15) Residential uses, second floor only when street facing. B. Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit 1) Automatic ice vending machines; 2) Coffee houses, dessert shops and similar establishments with seating for more than 10 customers and the gross square footage of the establishment exceeds 1,000 sq. ft; 3) Coin operated amusement machines as a secondary use; 4) Commercial activities operating between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; 5) Entertainment cafes; Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 10 Zucker Systems 6) Gas Stations located on a major arterial, subject to compliance with the performance and development standards imposed by Section 23-2318; 7) Horticultural Nursery; 8) Liquor establishments, if part of a grocery store, provided that the number of such establishments permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed two (2) at any one time. Permitted operating hours for such establishments shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, and holidays. Any such establishments which qualify for temporary on-sale or off-sale licenses under the provisions of California Business and Professions Code Sections 24045.1, 24045.2, 24045.3, 24045.4, 24045.6, 24045.7, 24045.8, and 24045.9, as may be amended, shall be exempt from this requirement for a Conditional Use Permit; 9) Medical offices and laboratories facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (1 st floor); 10) Movie Theaters; 11) Parking garage; 12) Pet shop; 13) Private Parking lots; 14) Professional offices facing Main Street or Ocean Avenue (1st floor); 15) Recycling facilities as defined in Section 28-2321 and as follows: a) Reverse vending machines; b) Small collection recycling facilities within a convenience zone; and c) Mobile recycling units within a convenience zone; 16) Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not including drive-in restaurants). Permitted operating hours of such restaurants shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday, Saturday, a nd holidays; 17) Similar retail or service establishments catering directly to consumers when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the intent of service commercial uses and the General Plan; and 18) Veterinary out-patient clinic. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 11 Zucker Systems Section 28-1251. Limitations on Permitted Uses. Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: A. All uses shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building except such uses as: 1) Growing stock, only when in connection with horticultural nurseries; 2) Parking lots; 3) Restaurant, semi-enclosed; 4) Outdoor uses authorized under the Outdoor Uses Program (See Policy 4.5 for additional information and requirements). B. Storage shall be limited to accessory storage of commodities sold at retail on the premises. C. All operations conducted on the premises shall not be objectionable by reason of noise, odor, dust, mud, smoke, steam, vibration or other similar causes. D. Where any property used for commercial purposes has a common property line with property zoned for residential purposes, no commercial use shall be established thereon unless there is first erected a solid masonry or concrete block wall not less than eight feet in height at such property line, except where a wall of a building is on such property line, no separate block wall need be provided. E. Findings required for Conditional Use Permits within the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries: 1) Additional Findings Required. In reviewing applications for Conditional Use Permits for the Main Street area, the Planning Commission shall evaluate each proposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted within the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries unless Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 12 Zucker Systems the Planning Commission makes, in addition to those findings required in the Zoning Code, Section 11.5.20.020, all of the following findings: a) The proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and Vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. b) The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan’s goal to establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. c) The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide the Main Street a sense of identity. d) The proposed use complies with all applicable City Council policies, such as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol serving uses. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 13 Zucker Systems 3. BUILDING AND DESIGN PROVISIONS In preparing the Specific Plan, an urban design analysis of the Main Street area was conducted. This study suggested that the following factors are important ingredients in maintaining the small town village charm and a pedestrian scale: ✓ Transparent storefronts with views into shops, offices and restaurants. ✓ Building facades located near the street property line. ✓ Continuous street side facades from side lot line to side lot line. ✓ Screening of parking lots from the pedestrians’ way. ✓ Building facades limited to 35-50 feet in width. ✓ Eclectic architecture without national trademark buildings. ✓ Low one and two story buildings. ✓ Signs in keeping with the pedestrian scale and atmosphere. Although many communities would use these factors to establish a design review process, the Main Street Specific Plan takes a different approach. Specific design criteria are established to be implemented as part of a ministerial permit process. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 14 Zucker Systems POLICY 2. Create New General Provisions for Lot Size, Open Space, Bulk and Yards (C-SP Zone, Section 28-1253) Section 28-1253. General Provisions. Lot Size, Open Space and Yards. 1) Minimum Lot Size: Width:…………………………………………………………………25 feet Depth:………………………………………………………………..110 feet Area:………………………………………………………..2,750 square feet 2) Yard Dimension (minimums): Abutting Front Street:…………………………………………………...…0* Abutting Side Street:…………………………………………………...….0* Abutting Rear Street:……………………………………………...……….0* Abutting Side Alley:…………………………………………………....4 feet Abutting Rear Alley:………………………………………………….22 feet Not Abutting Street or Alley on Side:…………………………..…………0* Not Abutting Street or Alley on Rear:……………………..….10% lot width; 5 ft. min/ 10 ft. max* *Where a property has a front, side or rear yard on a block face with residentially zoned properties, the minimum dimensions for required front, side, or rear yards for the property shall be the same minimum dimensions as required in the residential zone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, uses with loading zone requirements do not have to provide the minimum dimensions required for residential zone rear yards where such loading zone conflicts with such minimum requirements. 3) Lot Coverage:…………………………………………………………..75% 4) Maximum Height, Main Building:…………………………30 feet maximum Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 15 Zucker Systems Any portion of structure greater than 20 feet in height must be set back from street facade a minimum of 10 feet. 5) Maximum Height, Accessory Building:………………………..….…15 feet 6) Minimum Required Landscape:. . . . 0% of the site, plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout any on-grade parking lot area. If parking area abuts the front or side street(s), a landscape area averaging 3 feet in width shall be required between such parking area and sidewalk(s) subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. Such area shall include a minimum of one tree for eac h 30 ft. of linear landscape area plus landscaping and/or wall to a height of 2.5 feet designed to screen the automobiles from the sidewalk. In no case shall the landscape area be less than 1 foot in width. 7) Lot Area Standards: . . . Smaller parcels shall not be merged for development purposes into a parcel that exceeds 6,000 square feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, development may be permitted on parcels that exceed 6,000 square feet as of the effective date of this Article. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 16 Zucker Systems POLICY 3. Building and Design Provisions Section 28-1254. Design Provisions. 1) All buildings shall meet the following design criteria: a) Transparency: At sidewalk level buildings shall be primarily transparent. A minimum of 50% of all first floor facades with street frontage shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space. The building wall sub ject to transparency requirements shall include the portion between three feet and ten feet above the sidewalk. Blank walls should be avoided and lively facades encouraged. b) Glass: All glass in windows and doorways shall be clear for maximizing visibility into stores. A minimal amount of neutral tinting of glass to achieve some sun control is acceptable if the glass appears essentially transparent when viewed from the outside. Opaque and reflecting glass shall not be used. c) Window Security Bars: Window security bars shall only be allowed if installed on the interior of the window area. d) Facade Set-Back: Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 17 Zucker Systems Buildings shall be located on or within 4 feet of the street property line. Exceptions shall be: a) outdoor restaurant seating areas or b) areas where abutting buildings are, as of the effective date of this Article, set back creating in effect continuous store frontages with a wider sidewalk. In the latter case, the abutting buildings' set back shall be considered the equivalent of the property line. e) Facade Continuity: Building street facades shall be continuous from lot line to lot line. Parking or loading areas shall not abut Main Street or Ocean Avenue frontages. f) Facade Width: Facades of interconnecting buildings should retain their individual identity. Buildings should not be remodeled or painted to give the appearance of a single building. Any street side building facade exceeding 50 feet in width shall be segmented into individual designs not exceeding 50 feet in width. g) Trademark Buildings: Trademark buildings used to house a franchise operation shall be prohibited. 2) All new sidewalks or sidewalk replacements shall be constructed utilizing a textured sidewalk material in a pattern or design representing no less than 50% of the sidewalk surface. Section 28-1258. Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 18 Zucker Systems POLICY 4. Signs Section 28-1804. Subsection 3. Permitted Signs 3. C-0, C-SP, C-1 and C-2 Zones. The following signs are permitted in the C-0, C-SP, C-1 and C-2 zones: a) One unlighted sign pertaining to the sale, lease, or rental of the property on which the sign is displayed. Parcel Size Sign Size Lots of record and parcels not exceeding: 10,000 square feet…………………………………………………6 sq. ft. 10,000 square feet to 1 acre……………………………………...25 sq. ft. More than 1 acre…………………………………………………50 sq. ft. b) Political signs when they pertain to an election, shall be placed no earlier than thirty days prior to the election to which they pertain. Signs posted on a building face or in a window shall not exceed thirty -six inches by forty-eight inches. Said signs shall be removed within seven days after the election. c) Construction signs under the same restrictions as Section 28-1804 (1)(d); d) For each shopping center, identification signs are permitted as follows: 1) One free-standing or pole identification sign containing the name and logo of the center. Sign not to exceed fifteen feet in overall height and not to exceed sixty square feet on one face of a double-faced sign; Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 19 Zucker Systems 2) One monument sign not to exceed ten square feet in area and not to exceed four feet in height at each traffic entrance to the center in no case shall more than four monument signs be placed in any shopping center. e) Each commercial activity may have signing identifying the activity on the premises as follows: 1) One sign per building face which is visible from streets or parking lot area. Said sign to be fascia or wall sign. 2) Size of fascia or wall sign shall be one square foot per lineal foot of building face, not to exceed one hundred square feet per sign. 3) In lieu of one or more fascia or wall signs, one free-standing or pole sign not to exceed fifteen feet in overall height may be erected on the parcel or building site on which the building is located. Maximum size of sign shall not exceed sixty square feet per face of a double faced sign. Free standing or pole signs are prohibited in the C-SP zone. 4) In case of buildings having less than twenty-five linear feet of frontage on a street, twenty-five square feet of signing will be permitted. 5) In cases where a business is located on a street with a speed limit of thirty-five mph or more, a free standing sign or larger fascia or wall sign will be permitted. The larger may be an additional one-half square foot per lineal foot of building frontage not to exceed eighty additional square feet. (See subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, above). The maximum sign area per sign of one hundred square feet does not apply in this case. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 20 Zucker Systems 6) No more than two items of information will be permitted per sign. An example of one item of information would be the name of the business, specialty item, unique service, etc. 7) Projecting signs shall be allowed in the C-SP zone subject to the following conditions: a. “Projecting sign” means an attached sign (other than a flat -mounted sign) which projects out from a building or structure and usually has two message surfaces. If such sign projects over a public right -of- way, it is subject to Paragraph 7d. b. Projecting signs shall be allowed that: • do not exceed four (4) square feet in area per side; • project no more than three (3) feet from the wall to which attached; • are located at least seven (7) feet but not more than twelve (12) feet above grade; and • are not illuminated or illuminated by external lighting. c. Each ground-level occupancy frontage may have one (l) such projecting sign if such sign is located near its primary entry way. Such sign shall be in addition to signs allowed in Section 28-1804 3e. d. No sign shall project into any public right-of-way unless the Director of Public Works shall have first issued an encroachment permit therefor. 8) A-Frame signs shall be permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan under a Main Street Outdoor Use Permit subject to compliance with all of the following provisions. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 21 Zucker Systems a. A-Frame Sign Regulation and Design Requirements: • Permitted Quantity and Dimensions: Each commercial business with a first-floor, street facing frontage in the Main Street Specific Plan shall be entitled to one A-frame sign. The sign may have two faces, not exceeding three feet in height or a width of two feet. • Illumination and Placement: A-frame signs shall remain unlighted and should not obscure or visually impair vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Placement of A-frame signs should ensure they do not encroach upon the public right-of-way or publicly owned property without prior approval through an outdoor use permit, and at no time shall placement or maintenance of A-frame signs impede emergency access or violate disability access requirements including but not limited to, wheelchair access. • Clear Path of Travel: A-frame signage placement must at all times allow for and maintain a minimum 8 -foot clear path of travel between the edge of the sign and any sidewalk obstructions, including light poles, parking meters, news racks, and fire hydrants. • Permitted Location: If the business possesses an approved permit for outdoor use, A-frame signage should be positioned within the allocated use area with the other permitted items, and all permitted items including A-frame sign shall fit completely within the allocated use area. A-frame signage must be removed from the right-of-way at the conclusion of each business day to uphold the safety, access, cleanliness and aesthetics of Main Street. f) When property falls under an adopted planned sign program the above provisions do not apply. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 22 Zucker Systems POLICY 4.5: Main Street Outdoor Program: The Main Street Outdoor Program is designed to revitalize the frontages of ground- floor businesses and property owners located on Main Street. The program encourages these establishments to expand their frontage by setting up outdoor accessory uses such as dining areas, benches, plants, signage, and the outdoor display of merchandise, creating a welcoming environment for visitors. The program aims to enhance the overall aesthetic appeal of Main Street, while also providing businesses with an opportunity to increase their visibility and attra ct more foot traffic. The focus on dining outdoors emphasizes the al fresco atmosphere, allowing visitors to savor their meals amidst natural elements and enjoy a more relaxed setting. The expansion of outdoor dining/uses through the limited use of sidewalk is an effective strategy to not only support local businesses, but to activate the public realm by creating pedestrian-oriented spaces worth walking to and spending time in. Goals: ✓ Support local business; ✓ Promote welcoming places; ✓ Be accessible and equitable; ✓ Attract new business; ✓ Increase visitor satisfaction; and ✓ Maintain a unique visual experience. APPLICABILITY: The purpose of this policy section is to establish general procedures and guidelines for the establishment and operation of accessory outdoor uses on Main Street through an administrative process. Outdoor sidewalk dining enhances the vibrancy Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 23 Zucker Systems and vitality of the City's commercial areas while promoting pedestrian activity and economic development. The provisions of this section are applicable to eligible property owners and business owners with businesses that meet the following requirements: • Located on frontage in the Main Street Specific Plan area, • Operate a ground floor establishment, • Comply with State Alcoholic Beverage Control, • Obtained an encroachment permit and outdoor use permit, • Comply with development standards and operating requirements of the Main Street outdoor use permit. PERMITTED ITEMS with the Main Street Outdoor Use Permit: • Tables • Chairs • Benches • Business Signage • Potted Plants • Heaters • Umbrellas • Outdoor Merchandise (including portable display fixtures such as racks, shelves, tables, and dress forms). OUTDOOR MERCHANDISE: Outdoor displayed merchandise must be related to the business at the site. Outdoor display fixtures should be of good quality, compatible with the surrounding buildings, and maintained to enhance the area. Displays should not exceed specific dimensions and must comply with accessibility standards (Table 3). Merchandise displays must be able to retain a minimum of eight feet of unobstructed clear width Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 24 Zucker Systems for pedestrian travel, including any existing obstacles such as street furniture, bicycle racks, trees, and utilities. Displays should not be used for extra storage and must be removed during non-business hours unless on private property. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: Outdoor sidewalk uses shall be permitted on private property and public sidewalks in front of existing businesses within the Main Street Specific Plan area of the City of Seal Beach subject to the issuance of an administrative outdoor use permit and encroachment permit and compliance with the standards as outlined in and required by this policy. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: This outline provides a comprehensive overview of the development standards and requirements for outdoor sidewalk uses permitted through application. Applicants are advised to refer to the specific regulations and guidelines outlined below in the standards chart for detailed information and compliance. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 25 Zucker Systems TABLE 3 OUTDOOR USES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 26 Zucker Systems Dining Tables/ Merchandise Display Chairs Bench Potted plants Umbrella/ covering Heaters Signage Permitted Location with applicable permits Adjacent to store front or adjacent to edge of roadway as long as the 8 ft minimum clear pedestrian walkway is maintained at all times of use. Maximum Size of Items 60 in. wide N/A 60 in. wide 30 in high along roadway, 7 ft clearance to canopy N/A N/A 24 in. wide x 36 in. tall (Policy 4 for more details) Maximum Number of items per frontage size 25 ft 2 (W≤ 60 in. combined) 4 1 2 No Max No Max 1 37.5 ft 3 (W≤ 90 in. combined) 6 1 2 No Max No Max 1 50 ft 4 (W≤ 120 in. combined) 8 1 2 No Max No Max 1 Minimum Unobstructed Clear Path for pedestrian travel (including existing obstacles such as street furniture, bicycle racks, trees, and utilities with permitting items) 8 ft measured from Table to clear path 8 ft measured from Chair to clear path 8 ft measured from benches to clear path 8 ft measured from potted plants to clear path and 7 ft vertical clearance to tree canopy 8 ft measured from Umbrella to clear path and 7 ft vertical clearance 8 ft measured from Heater to clear path 8 ft measured from Sign to clear path 2 ft to the edge of the roadway/ the back of curb adjacent to parking N/A Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 27 Zucker Systems ADDITIONAL ITEM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: a) Tables and chairs shall be limited to one row. b) Tall tables permitted as long as ADA compliance is still maintained and necessary permits obtained. Consult Community Development Department for guidance. c) All permitted items must be in the storefront without extending into or being in a neighboring storefront while maintaining eight feet of unobstructed sidewalk at all times. d) If an adjacent business agrees in writing to allow a neighboring business to use a portion of its storefront space for a permitted outdoor use, the business can extend its outdoor use area by a maximum of one foot into the neighboring business’ storefront. Approval of an extension into the storefront of an adjacent business shall require the applicant to submit a signed letter from the adjacent business stating that they agree to allow the restaurant to use one foot of the adjacent storefront for the permitted outdoor use. Permitted Hours of use/ operations of permitted items on sidewalk All items are permitted to be on the sidewalk from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. unless otherwise conditioned by the Community Development Director. Temporary and must be stored on private property during non- operating hours Permanent placement for the duration of the active outdoor use permit Temporary and must be stored on private property during non-operating hours Additional item specific requirements (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (O) (C) (I) (J) (C) (G) (H)(J) (C) (K)(M) (C) (J) (M) (C) (N) Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 28 Zucker Systems e) Applicants/permittees are responsible for compliance with all alcohol license requirements, if applicable. Applicants/permittees are advised to work directly with ABC to understand alcohol service regulations on the sidewalk. f) The permitted dining locations are as follows: g) Plant materials shall be selected for low water demand and drought tolerance, adaptability and relationship to the Seal Beach environment, and the geological and topographical conditions of the site. h) Plants and planters shall not exceed the permitted height of 30 inches on parcels located on a corner with proposed planters in the traffic visibility triangle. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 29 Zucker Systems i) Storefronts with a Memorial Bench Program bench shall be permitted at least one additional bench with the application of a Main Street Outdoor Use Permit. j) Bench and Landscaping example: k) Portable gas (LPH) heating appliances may be used within Main Street dining areas and must meet the following requirements: a. Cannot be located beneath or closer than 10 feet to canopies/tents per California Fire Code b. Cannot be five feet to similar combustible materials per California Fire Code c. Propane tanks may be stored on site in an approved enclosed area of the installation to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department and Orange County Fire Authority. d. Only permitted when used with outdoor dining. l) The placement, color, style and type of umbrella or coverings shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building. Only permitted when used for outdoor dining. m) Umbrellas and heater example: Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 30 Zucker Systems n) A-frame signs shall maintain a minimum clearance of eight feet in the walkway. o) Outdoor merchandise display fixtures (such as tables, shelves, and dress forms) are limited to a maximum 60 inch width per fixture. Multiple fixtures may be used provided they do not exceed the maximum combined width allowed per storefront. p) Additional benches may be used in lieu of dining tables or merchandise display fixtures provided they do not exceed the maximum combined width allowed per storefront when used in replacement or in combination of those uses. 7 ft min 8 ft clear Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 31 Zucker Systems APPLICATION PROCESS: Applicants shall review and complete materials required in the Main Street Outdoor Uses Guide and Application Checklist for the identified location of the Outdoor items. Applicants shall confirm location eligibility with staff prior to submitting plans of proposal. This application and permits are not transferable and do not run with the land, and approval of a new Main Street Outdoor Use Permit and encroachment permit shall be required for each new business in the location if a transferred or new outdoor use wishes to be maintained at that location. APPLICATION INFORMATION: The applicant shall submit the application and pay processing fees in accordance with the provisions set forth in the City Master Fees. The applicant shall submit the following related materials for compliance review of applicable requirements set forth in this specific plan. 1. Completed Main Street Outdoor Uses Application/Checklist 2. Provide an outdoor use plan with design details and site photos 3. Proof of Liability Insurance and Liability Release Agreement 4. Pay the fees for the Main Street Outdoor Use Permit 5. Confirmation of the applications for a concurrent Encroachment Permit from Public Works 6. Written approval from the Property and Business owner(s) 7. Written approval from adjacent Property and Business owner(s) if outdoor use will extend into the adjacent business’ storefront. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 32 Zucker Systems APPLICATION REVIEW: Applications shall be reviewed by applicable City Departments/Divisions including but not limited to Planning, Building, Fire, Police and Public Works. During the review period a Community Development Inspector shall complete a site visit to confirm the dimensions and outdoor use plan provided is accurate and can accommodate the requested outdoor uses. The Applicant shall provide any additional information or documentation and respond to City comments as requested. APPROVING AUTHORITY: All Main Street outdoor use permits are reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. The director shall issue the Main Street outdoor use permit only if all required requirements and standards of the Main Street Specific Plan and Outdoor Use Guidelines are met. INSTALLATIONS AND INSPECTIONS: Applicants shall be notified by the Community Development Department once an application is approved with code compliant design layout and all fees have been paid. INSTALLATION: Applicant/permittee shall post the City provided window sticker with business name and expiration date in store window. INSPECTIONS: The Applicant/permittee shall request an inspection for compliance after the installation has been completed. The City will inspect for the outdoor uses for compliance with the permit approvals based on the following standards: Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 33 Zucker Systems ✓ Site plan and development standards, ✓ Operating standards, ✓ Active/up-to-date permit ✓ Maintenance Standards Applicant/permittees shall be notified by the Community Development Department once an inspection has been scheduled. TIME LIMITATIONS: The Main Street outdoor use permit is valid for one fiscal year (July 1 st through June 30th) and shall automatically expire on June 30th of every year. Permittees wishing to renew an expiring permit shall submit a renewal form with appropriate fees prior to June 30th. Outdoor uses shall cease after June 30th pending the Department’s review of and determination on a renewal application form. MAINTENANCE: All Main Street outdoor areas must be maintained by the permittee in clean and safe conditions at all times, including sweeping and cleaning of outdoor use locations, and appropriate provisions for trash disposal. At all times each permittee shall also ensure the preservation of pedestrian access and disability access along the public sidewalk. Owners and permittees of approved outdoor use areas are responsible for upholding these standards at all times. Owners and permittees of approved outdoor uses shall meet the requirements of this Policy and the Encroachment permit at all times (Refer to the Public Works Requirements for additional information). CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP: Approved and valid permits may not be transferred to new business owners even at the same address. For any business that has a change in ownership shall be subject to City approval of a new application reflecting new ownership and compliance with Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 34 Zucker Systems all requirements of this Policy, and issuance of a new outdoor use permit and encroachment permit. REVOCATION: The City retains the right to revoke or suspend an outdoor use permit and/or encroachment permit upon written notice to the permittee for any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies, necessary construction, or area maintenance at the discretion of the Community Development Director; 2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s) or failure to comply with Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) permits/regulations; 3. Failure to comply with the outdoor use plan; 4. Failure to comply with the operating requirements of the approval; 5. Failure to comply with any relevant Conditional Use Permit (CUP); 6. Failure to comply with disability access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 7. Failure to address administrative citations or other municipal code infractions, or repeated citations/infractions; 8. Failure to maintain a valid business license. 9. Failure to maintain space in a clean and safe condition at all times, including sweeping and cleaning of outdoor use locations, with appropriate provisions for trash disposal. NOTICE OF VIOLATION: Upon identification of a violation of permit conditions, regulations, or applicable laws related to outdoor uses, the Community Development Department shall issue a written Notice of Violation to the permittee. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 35 Zucker Systems Upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, the permittee must remedy the violation and demonstrate compliance with permit conditions. A Community Development Inspector will then return for an inspection to confirm compliance. If permittee is unable to comply with the permit, the permit shall immediately be revo ked for the reasons listed above. INSTALLATION REMOVAL: The operation shall cease and the permittee shall restore the permit area to the condition existing prior to the placement of the outdoor facilities within 24 hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any appeal of the action, or to a condition acceptable by the Community Development Director. If pursuant to the above requirements, permit areas that are not restored by the permittee within the time specified by the City, the City may remove any and all facilities installed within the right-of-way. Reimbursement of City costs for said removal and storage shall be the responsibility of the permittee. City may dispose of any such facilities following notice to permittees in accordance with applicable law. REQUIRED OPERATION STANDARDS: Main Street outdoor use permittees are required to comply with the following operating standards: A. Permittees shall comply with all State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board requirements when the conditional use permit includes the sale of alcohol. B. Permittees shall not begin hours of sidewalk operation prior to 7 a.m. nor extend later than 10 p.m. C. Permittees shall maintain eight feet of unobstructed clear space of travel for pedestrians, free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Such clear Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 36 Zucker Systems pathway shall link continuously with pathways on each side of the property and shall allow a minimum clear space of eight feet at all times. These minimum widths are to ensure compliance with ADA standards and reduce liability concerns due to shifting tables, wait staff or other obstructions which can reduce the effective width. D. Permittees shall ensure where umbrellas and awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least seven feet above the sidewalk must be maintained and eight feet clear path of travel. E. Permittees shall not allow for items within the Main Street outdoor use areas, except for approved greenery and benches, to be left when not in use or overnight unless property is secured to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. F. Permittees shall confine approved outdoor uses to the area shown on the approved outdoor use plan and shall not interfere with building egress. G. Permittees shall maintain outdoor use areas in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provisions for trash disposal. H. Permittees and associated business operations shall meet all required County Health Department standards, obtain any necessary permits and service to the areas shall be conducted in a safe manner at all times. I. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner, unless approved by the City with the submittal of a new application reflecting new ownership. J. Operations permitted under the Main Street outdoor use permit shall in no way interfere with access to City utilities. K. Permittees shall prohibit smoking in the outdoor use areas. L. Issuance of the Main Street outdoor use permit shall not permit or allow the placement of any permanent or temporary structure or improvement on public or private property in violation of any state or federal accessibility law, including the Americans with Disability Act, or prohibit or suspend immediate code enforcement action deemed necessary by the Building Official, City Engineer, or any other authorized enforcement official of the City, to remedy or abate: a dangerous condition or activity; any activit y presenting imminent threat or harm to the health, safety or welfare of the community; any violation of state or federal accessibility law; or any unauthorized activity on private Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 37 Zucker Systems property or in the public right -of-way. Permittees are responsible for ensuring accessibility and ADA compliance of their Main Street outdoor use areas, M. Permittees shall have all propane cylinders used for outdoor gas heaters stored and secured pursuant to regulations in the California Code of Regulations and California Fire Code. Cylinders placed in the public right -of-way shall be safely secured and locked with the heater enclosure or stored in vented safety cages or cabinets in a flat area that does not collect water and is adequately shielded from pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic. N. Outdoor merchandise displays shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Low quality display tables such as milk crates, card tables, and pallets are not permitted. At no time shall merchandise be placed, displayed or allowed to remain in the eight-foot pedestrian clearance area. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 38 Zucker Systems 5. PARKING AND TRAFFIC A. PARKING In 1994 there were 751 parking spaces as shown in Table 4 generally available for commercial uses within the Specific Plan area. In addition to this, there are 425 spaces in the beach lots and 58 spaces in the City employee lot on 8th Street. Parking demand in 1994 was calculated in two ways. Based on the zoning, the 223,600 square feet of commercial activities would theoretically require 1,258 spaces. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 39 Zucker Systems The second method was to look at actual parking demand. Parking counts were completed each hour during the mid-day (noon to 2:00 PM) and evening (6:00 PM to 9:00 PM) peak periods on April 9, 1994 (Saturday, non -peak season) and on July 2, 1994 (Saturday, peak season, July 4th weekend). These counts are shown in the Appendix of the Background Report. The parking counts indicate that the majority of the on-street parking spaces in the study area, as well as the parking in the public parking lots adjacent to Main Street are occupied during peak periods. However, parking in the beach lot is generally under-utilized, with 48 percent of the parking spaces vacant at 1:00 PM on Saturday, July 2, 1994, which was when the peak parking demand for the beach lot was observed. After 6:00 p.m., 77% of the parking spaces in the beach lots were vacant. Additionally, parking spaces in the alleys are generally under-utilized. There are 36 short-term (24 Minute) parking spaces designated at key resident serving commercial locations on Main Street, with a two hour time limit for the remainder of the parking on Main Street. On the surrounding residential streets there is typically a one hour time limit on one side o f the street, with no parking restrictions on the other side. However, there is a one hour parking time limit on both sides of Tenth Street and on both sides of Eighth Street south of Electric Avenue. In light of their proximity to and support of area businesses, the curb spaces on Main Street, and in the 800 and 900 blocks along Ocean Avenue, Central Avenue, and Electric Avenue are primarily commercial parking spaces. The remainder of the on- street parking in the residential areas primarily supports the adjacent residential uses. Annual parking passes for the beach lot are sold to Seal Beach Residents and non- residents. Further, Unocal (off-shore oil) uses the beach lot and pays via a key card. A sports fishing boat operating off the end of the pier also has a key card to use this lot. Automobile parking fees for the beach lot vary between summer and winter, and weekends and holidays. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 40 Zucker Systems The City’s residential parking permit program allows residents to purchase a permit that allows their vehicle to park more than one hour on residential streets with one hour parking restrictions. The permit also allows them to park in the municipal parking lots on Main Street and on Eighth Street at Central Avenue between the hours of 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM, only. The City also issues guest parking permits with the same parking regulations. Merchants and employees in the Old Town area can buy an annual parking permit that allows them to park in the City parking lots. The permit is to be permanently affixed to the outside of the vehicle on the left rear window or bumper. The merchant permits are not resalable or transferable. In 1984, the City began an “interim in-lieu parking program” in connection with a variety of zoning variances along Main Street. Participants were required to pay $100/year/space on an interim basis pending development of a more detailed program. According to the approval conditions these in-lieu fees may be increased. In 1994 this fund was generating $19,600 a year in funds to the City. More recent permits have been negotiated as part of development agreements. These have been fixed fees based on $3,500/parking space, generally paid over several years. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission has required four businesses to lease 72 other non-commercial spaces for commercial use. Based on the parking analysis, the 1994 parking demand and supply is considered in relative balance. However, there is a need to provide additional conveniently located parking to serve Main Street and to provide a base for future parking need. Most significantly, the parking analysis indicates that the primary parking problem in the Specific Plan area is the location and management of the existing parking supply and not an overall shortage of parking. However, as existing buildings are expanded, or new uses are established which would require more parking than existing uses, there will be an increased demand for parking. Since the existing commercial lots on Main Street have inadequate room Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 41 Zucker Systems for new parking, the only likely solution to parking needs is a City in -lieu parking program. B. Traffic Roadways in the Specific Plan are typically two-way with a single travel lane plus a parking lane in each direction. Main Street has diagonal parking along most of its length, except for some parallel spaces in the 300 block, which provides enough width for two lanes for traffic traveling northeast on the approach to the traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway. A traffic signal also exists at the southeast end of Main Street at Ocean Avenue, and four-way stops are posted at the intersections with Central and Electric Avenues. Mid-block pedestrian crosswalks have been striped in all three Main Street blocks. Electric Avenue has a broad, linear landscaped median, resulting in two one -way roadbeds. The two roadways merge at Main Street to form a single intersection. Each roadbed provides a single travel lane and a bike lane, plus parking at the right curb. The majority of the traffic entering the study area travels southwest on Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway. Generally, if a motorist cannot find a parking space near their desired destination as they travel along Main Street, they will turn at Ocean Avenue and travel up Eight or Tenth Street and then re -circulate down Main Street. September, 1993 traffic counts indicated average daily traffic in the vicinity of Main Street as 9317 on Main Street, Ocean 4070, Central 3018, and Electric 3660. Using these counts, all streets would be operating at a high Level of Service with the exception of Main Street. However, Main Street is considered a combination parking and traffic street and a high level of traffic service is not anticipated. Traffic flow and traffic control is not perceived to be a problem in the Specific Plan area. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 42 Zucker Systems POLICY 5. Parking Standards Section 28-1255 Parking and Loading Space Requirements. 1) Off-street parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet by twenty feet. A minimum driver aisle width shall be provided as follows: 90 degree Right Angle Parking………………………………….……. 24 feet 60 degree Angle One-Way Traffic…………………………………… 18 feet 45 degree Angle One-Way Traffic……………………………………. 12 feet 0 degree Parallel One-Way Traffic……………………………………..12 feet 2) All parking areas shall be paved with portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete. 3) Parking requirements shall be satisfied in one or more of the following ways: a) By providing required off-street parking spaces on the property on which the building is located; b) By providing required off-street parking spaces within three hundred feet of such building. c) Through participation in the City’s in -lieu parking program as established in Section 28-1257. 4) No use shall be established unless there is full compliance with the off-street parking requirements set forth herein or the in-lieu parking program set forth in Section 28-1257. 5) No onsite loading area is required. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 43 Zucker Systems Section 28-1256. Number of Off-Street Parking & Spaces Required. 1) Beauty salon; Nail Shop…………………………………2 spaces per each operator. 2) Business Offices……………………….1 space for every 300 sq. ft. gross floor area. 3) Coffee houses; Dessert shops……………………………1 space for each 500 sq. ft. Gross floor area or part thereof. Exception: Outdoor seating/uses, accessory to restaurant/coffee house/ dessert shop shall not require parking spaces (see subparagraph 15) 4) Financial Institutions Professional Offices…………………………..………1 space for every 250 sq. ft. Gross floor area. 5) Furniture Stores………………………..1 space for every 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area 6) Grocery Stores………………………………………..1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. Gross floor area or part thereof. 7) Hardware Stores………………………………………1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. Gross floor area or part thereof. 8) Horticultural Nursery…………………………………1 space for every 2500 sq. ft. of lot area. 9) Medical Offices………………………1 space for every 200 sq. ft. gross floor area. 10) Movie Theaters…………………………………………1 space for every 6 seats. 11) Offices Nor Providing Customer Service on the Premises…………………………..1 space for every four employees or 1 space for every 500 sq. ft. gross floor area (whichever is greater). Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 44 Zucker Systems 12) Pharmacy; Drug stores………………………………..1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. 13) Restaurants………………..…………1 space for every 100 sq. ft. gross floor area. Exception: Outdoor seating/uses, accessory to restaurant/coffee house/ dessert shop shall not require parking spaces (see subparagraph 15) 14) Retail Stores…………………………………………..1 space for each 500 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof. 15) Outdoor seating/ uses permit………………………………..0 spaces for sq. ft. (Outdoor seating/ uses shall not result in a reduction of parking provided for the related primary restaurants/ coffee house/ dessert shop/retail use). Section 28-1257. In-Lieu Parking Program. A. Participation in Program Required: In the event a use cannot provide the off-street parking spaces required by Section 28-1255 and Section 28-1256, such use shall not be established unless there is full compliance with all the requirements of the Main Street In-Lieu Parking Program as established in this Section. All or part of off-street parking space requirements may be satisfied by compliance with this Section. B. In Lieu Parking Fee: The In-Lieu Parking Fee and the formula for calculating said fee shall be established by Resolution of the City Council. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 45 Zucker Systems C. Existing Uses – Parking Deficiencies: Any use which pre-exists the effective date of this ordinance and which is presently operating under the authority of a discretionary land use entitlement and/or development agreement shall remain subject to the terms and conditions of said approval and agreement. As a condition to those entitlements, the applicants agreed to participate in any in -lieu program established by the City Council. This Article constitutes the in -lieu parking program referenced in the resolutions conferring those entitlements and in those certain development agreements. D. Processing In-Lieu Parking Program Applications: 1. Eligible persons or businesses desiring to participate in the In-Lieu Parking Program established herein shall submit a written application for participation to the Director of Development Services on a form prescribed by the City. If the Director determines that such application meets the requirements set forth in Sections 28-1255, et seq. of this Code, the Director shall, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such application, calculate the applicable in-lieu fee and grant permission to participate in the program, if the Director makes the following findings: (a) Participation in the In-Lieu Parking Program will not create any significant adverse traffic safety impacts, pedestrian- vehicle conflicts, or parking impacts. (b) Participation in the In-Lieu Parking Program will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The Director may deny the request to participate in the program, if the Director is unable to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 3. The Director may restrict the applicant's participation in the program, if the Director determines that such restriction is necessary to make the findings set forth in subsection 1. 4. The Director’s decision shall be in writing, and shall be served upon the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 46 Zucker Systems E. Appeals: The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any aggrieved person, in the time and manner provided in Chapter 11.5.25 of Part V of Title 11 of the code. F. Payments and Deposits: 1. Payments of In-Lieu Parking Program Fees shall be made pursuant to the schedule adopted by Resolution of the City Council. In no event shall a certificate of occupancy be issued for any participating use in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone prior to the receipt by the City of the first installment or, if applicable, full payment of the In- Lieu Parking Fee. 2. Funds collected from the In-Lieu Parking Program shall be deposited in a segregated City In-Lieu Parking Program fund. Such fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting, managing, operating, increasing and maintaining the availability of parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of Main Street. G. Transferability: In-Lieu Parking space payments paid for pursuant to ·the provisions of this ordinance shall be credited only to the use for which participation was granted, and shall not be assigned or otherwise transferred for use on any other property. H. Expansion, Intensification or Change in Use to a Use which Requires Additional Off-Street Parking Spaces: Should the use of any property within the Main Street Specific Plan Zoning be proposed for expansion, enlargement, structural alterations, intensification or conversion to a new use which requires additional off-street parking spaces, the owner, lessee or sublessee of the property shall provide the required additional off-street parking, either on-site, within 300 feet of the property on which the building is located, or through payment of in-lieu parking program fees, or additional in-lieu parking program fees, as required by this Article. I. Acceptance of Terms and Provisions: An applicant’s participation in the program shall not become effective, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued, unless and until the participant first executes and submits for recording on the Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 47 Zucker Systems title to the property a covenant accepting the terms of the approval, in a form to be provided by the City Attorney. Said covenant shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and shall also be maintained in the office of the City Clerk. J. Violators Punishable by Fine and Imprisonment: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Section 28-2408. Nonconforming Nonresidential Buildings and Uses May Not Be Enlarged or Structurally Altered. C. Where a building or buildings located within the Main Street Specific Plan area are nonconforming only by reason of an inadequate number of parking spaces, the provisions of this chapter prohibiting enlargements, structural alteration or expansion shall not apply, provided: 1. that any enlargements, structural alterations, or expansion shall not further reduce the existing number of parking spaces, and 2. new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the parking requirements for the difference in building area between the existing building and new building, and 3. new parking spaces shall be supplied to meet the difference in parking requirements for the existing building between the prior use and the new use. Where property owners cannot meet off-street parking requirements, permits may be granted if said owners instead pay an in -lieu parking fee pursuant to the provisions of Section 28-1257. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 48 Zucker Systems POLICY 6. Parking Management Plan Although parking studies can establish theoretical demand, the actual demand for parking and behavior habits of parkers cannot be totally determined and changes over time. Therefore, the City shall establish a parking management plan. Such a plan should include, but not be limited to: a) Conducting and analyzing an annual parking count for the Specific Plan area, similar to the one prepared for the Specific Plan; b) First Phase – Management Improvements: ✓ Limit the 24 minute parking restrictions to the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period except for spaces serving resident oriented businesses that stay open past 6:00 p.m. ✓ Change the merchants' parking permit program to only allow parking in the beach lots. ✓ Increase enforcement of the parking restrictions for all parkers to emphasize a consistent and fair enforcement program. ✓ Work with the merchants to conduct a program so that employees do not park in street curb spaces. ✓ Allow public parking in the 8th Street lot after 5:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays and post appropriate signs to this effect. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 49 Zucker Systems ✓ Analyze City employee parking needs at the 8th Street lot and open any non-needed spaces to the public. ✓ Change the beach lots from a flat fee to an hourly fee, offer a merchant validation program, and explore use of the lots for a merchant valet program. ✓ Improve signage to the beach lots. ✓ Formalize the in-lieu parking program in conformance to AB 1600 requirements. c) Second Phase – Management Improvements: ✓ Adjust beach parking lot rates depending upon the result of parking surveys. If usage remains low, lower the rates. If usage reaches an average occupancy of 85%, raise the rates. ✓ Conduct a license plate analysis to determine the number of curb-side parkers who move their cars every two hours or rub off the chalk. If this is a problem, adopt a computerized system that records license plate numbers for enforcement. ✓ Improve pedestrian amenities, access and directional signs to the beach lots. ✓ Consider parking meters in the public parking lots located in the 100 and 300 blocks of Main Street. d) Third Phase – Management Improvements: ✓ Construct a two level depressed parking structure on the 8th Street lot adjacent to the Fire Station. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 50 Zucker Systems ✓ Look for opportunities to purchase land between 8th and 10th Streets between Ocean Avenue and Electric Avenue for future surface parking. The target cost should be less than $15,000 / space. ✓ Consider parking meters for curbside spaces on Main Street. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 51 Zucker Systems 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES A. Street Trees A key feature of pedestrian oriented streets and sidewalks are street trees. The three blocks of Main Street have 50 street trees which provide an appropriate atmosphere for much of the street. However, there are important gaps on both sides of the street. In addition to trees missing in front of commercial establishments, there is a lack of continuity of street trees on both sides of Main Street as it crosses Electric Avenue. The trees being used on Main Street were not planted with root barriers and the type of tree being used has invasive roots that creates problems with the sidewalks. POLICY 7. Tree Types The City should hire a landscape architect to recommend a tree type and planting methods for Main Street. The trees selected should grow to have substantial canopies, equal to or greater than the existing mature trees on Main Street. POLICY 8. Missing Trees The City and/or private interest should plant an additional 18 trees as shown in Figure 2. POLICY 9. Tree Replacement When existing trees need to be replaced due to damage or sidewalk problems, trees should be replaced consistent with the findings of Policy 7 and 12. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 52 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 53 Zucker Systems B. Utility Lines and Poles Most of the electric utilities in the area are either underground or located in alleys. There are two areas where overhead utilities are particularly noticeable. One is a series of poles and lines leading off the 100 block of Main Street, another is along Electric Avenue. POLICY 10. Undergrounding of Utilities The City should adopt a long term plan to underground utilities in the Specific Plan area. Priorities should be: 1st – Poles and lines in the 100 block. 2nd – Poles and lines along Electric Avenue 3rd – Other poles and lines in the area C. Benches In 1994 there was an eclectic mix of bench designs on Main Street; some located next to buildings, some next to the curb. The eclectic mix of bench designs adds to the small town flavor of Main Street. The City issues permits for benches but the merchants buy their own benches and the City approves the bench design. POLICY 11. Benches Merchants shall be encouraged to add memorial benches to Main Street, through the memorial bench program, since they add to the pedestrian scale and atmosphere. All bench designs shall be approved by the City through a memorial bench application and the appropriate encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City. Non - memorial benches can also be added through the Outdoor Uses Program (See Policy Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 54 Zucker Systems 4.5 for additional information and requirements). Memorial benches shall maintain disability access, pedestrian access, and access to and from the public street, at all times. D. Street Lighting Street lighting on Main Street is supplied by Southern California Edison. The lighting level as of 1994 is considered adequate. Decorative lights are placed in the trees during the Christmas holidays. POLICY 12. Street Lighting Year round lights in the Main Street trees should be undertaken as a joint project of the Main Street merchants and the City. E. Bicycle Facilities In 1995 there was an eclectic mix of bicycle racks on Main Street; some located next to buildings, some next to the curb. The eclectic mix of bicycle racks adds to the small town flavor of Main Street. POLICY 13. Bicycle Facilities Merchants shall be encouraged to add additional bicycle racks along Main Street. All bicycle rack designs and locations shall be approved by the City, and the appropriate encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City. F. Landscaping Parking lots should be landscaped and also be separated from the sidewalks by landscaping. In 1994, the City's Electric Avenue parking lots met this standard, but the lot in the l 00 block of Main Street and the 8th Street lot did not. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 55 Zucker Systems POLICY 14. Parking Lot Landscaping The City should landscape the lot in the 100 block of Main Street and 8th Street parking lots. G. Signs on Public Sidewalks Some businesses along Main Street currently have sidewalk signs for business identification and advertising purposes. Properly controlled and designed, these types of signs can be beneficial to both the local business community, visitors to Main Street and the City. In 2010, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow for sidewalk signs that adhere to strict perimeters, and pursuant to this update, the Main Street Specific Plan has been amended to allow sidewalk signs of different designs to be added to businesses on Main Street subject to conditions intended to provide for and preserve safety, pedestrian access, disability access, sanitation and aesthetics. The City issues permits for sidewalk signs in the public right - of way but merchants buy their own signs and the City approves the sign design and location. POLICY 15. Signs on Public Sidewalks Merchants shall be encouraged to add signage to Main Street since they add to the pedestrian engagement. All such signs shall be approved by the City and the appropriate encroachment and outdoor use permits shall be obtained from the City as a condition of installation of any sign in the public right-of-way. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 56 Zucker Systems H. Other Public Facilities Since no extensive new construction is contemplated by this Specific Plan, the City will continue to utilize existing services for sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal and energy. I. Outdoor Uses on Public Sidewalks. Outdoor uses shall be permitted in Public Sidewalks with the required Outdoor Uses Permit and encroachment permit. See Policy 4.5 for additional information and requirements. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 57 Zucker Systems 7. SCREENING OF PRIVATE PARKING LOTS When creating a pedestrian atmosphere, it is generally useful to screen parking lots from pedestrians. Screening can be accomplished by a low wall or hedge or a landscape strip and trees between the pedestrian way and the parking area. Where space is particularly tight, bollards can also be used to separate parking areas from pedestrian sidewalk areas. Eight parking lots on Main Street, as shown in Figure 3, lack the appropriate screening feature. POLICY 16. Screening of Parking Lots The City should develop a program to encourage owners of parking lots located on Main Street to screen their parking lots from the pedestrian ways. The City should also explore the possibility for design assistance grants or low cost loans as an incentive for owners to improve their lots. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 58 Zucker Systems Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 59 Zucker Systems 8. DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT The goal of the Main Street Specific Plan is to set clear standards for Main Street. Under these standards, merchants and property owners can proceed with improvements in a timely fashion and residents can feel comfortable about Main Street development. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to assume that standards, once set, can remain the same for all time. Since circumstances can change, it is important to monitor Main Street’s evolution over time. The adoption and implementation of the Main Street Specific Plan can provide a major impetus for downtown revitalization. However, most communities involved with downtown revitalization have found that focusing on land use, circulation and design can be most effective when coupled with an additional emphasis on organization, promotion and economic restructuring. Such activities are strongly encouraged by the City to be undertaken by the local business community on a voluntary basis. POLICY 17. Business Improvement Activities The local business community may wish to develop on a voluntary basis additional organizational, promotional, economic restructuring, and improvement programs. Such voluntary activities of the local business community could include: Organization: Building consensus for action. Seeking cooperation from all parties. Providing long-term management and planning. Promotion: Advertising downtown as a place to shop, invest and live. Economic Recruiting businesses or developers to fulfill specific Restructuring: downtown needs and assisting existing businesses through business seminars and the like. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 60 Zucker Systems Improvements: Trees, lighting, sidewalks, undergrounding utilities, and signs. POLICY 18. Bi-Annual Main Street Review Every two years the City should prepare a Main Street review. Said review should include an analysis of: a. Sales tax trends b. Store vacancies c. Store turnovers d. Parking as per Policy 6 e. Report from the Main Street business community Based on an analysis of this the City should determine what, if any, additional actions are appropriate to carry out the intent of the Specific Plan. This review should be presented before the City Council at a noticed hearing. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 61 Zucker Systems 9. RELATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE GENERAL PLAN The Main Street Specific Plan carries out the objectives of the Seal Beach General Plan. It specifically carries out the following: a. Goal 3. Parks, Recreation and Community Beautification; Land Use Element, Page 4 “A master plan should be developed for street tree planting and other community beautification programs with emphasis on major arterials entering the City.” This item is carried out through the Specific Plan's street tree program as described in Policies 7, 8 and 9. b. Goal 6. Commercial; Land Use Element, Page 5 (as amended) “A precise specific plan should be developed for the coastal business district.” This Specific Plan includes the coastal business district and thus implements this goal. c. Goal 9. Circulation; Land Use Element, Page 6 “Efforts should be made to improve traffic circulation in the Coastal section of the City.” The Specific Plan land use and parking proposals should assist traffic circulation. More specifically, the land use policies coupled with the parking and traffic policies set appropriate parking standards for various uses. Where parking standards cannot be met, they are mitigated through a fee program. Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 62 Zucker Systems d. Commercial Land Use, Page 22 “The Main Street commercial serves both local residents and, to some extent, beach going people from other areas. The diversity in market attraction of the various commercial areas Indicates that each area should be treated differently than any of the others due to the par ticular clientele of each” This item is carried out in the Specific Plan by recognizing Main Street as a unique area. Specific unique land use tables are included in Policy 1, special design features are included in Policies 2, 3 and 4, and new commercial parking and loading requirements in Policies 5 and 6. e. 3.2 Proposed Service Commercial Uses “The proposed Land Use Element would continue the Seal Beach Shopping Center and the Leisure World Shopping Center as functioning service commercial uses. Main Street commercial is also proposed to be designated a service commercial use. As pointed out earlier the proposed new land use designation would be a name change only, because the present existing uses are of a service commercial nature. Main Street commercial, with the attraction of the beach and the proximity of relatively high density residential, has the potential to become a unique shopping area. With strong attraction for beach users, this commercial area can and should turn to a more pedestrian-oriented environment through the design application of textured walkways, street furniture, sign graphics, landscaping, lighting, and other design features.” Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 63 Zucker Systems The Specific Plan is consistent with this language. The Specific Plan establishes special design standards for the Main Street area in Policies 2, 3 and 4 and Policies 7 through 16. f. 3.1, 3.1c, 3.1e Civic Center Functions, Pacific Electric Right -of-Way, and Seal Beach Pier, Pages 32 and 33 “3.1 Civic Center Functions Civic Center functions are divided into four main categories: Administration, Police, Fire and Public Works. It is envisioned that the Administration offices will remain in the Coastal District at Eighth Street and Central Avenue, In the City Administration Building which was constructed in 1969. Fire Department services will continue to be administered from Fire Station No. 3 located on Beverly Manor Road and Fire Station No. 1 will continue to serve the portion of the City nearest to the beach.” “3.1c Pacific Electric Right-of-Way The Pacific Electric Right-of-Way has been developed as a park allowing for uses such as open space, recreation, public facilities (e.g., library, senior citizens' center, Red Car Museum, etc.). Development was through the Specific Plan Process.” “3.1e Seal Beach Pier The Seal Beach Pier, one of the very few piers in use today along the California coastline, should be maintained as its present use to allow for both fishing and pleasure walking to enjoy ocean amenities. Any needed repairs for the pier should be carried out so that the present me can be continued and enhanced.” Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 64 Zucker Systems The retention of the Administrative Offices and a Fire Station on Eighth Street along with the Electric Avenue Park and the Pier are all key ingredients for the Main Street area. The Administrative Offices, Fire Station, Pier and portions of Green Belt Park are included within the Specific Plan Boundary (see Figure 1). g. Scenic Highway Element Ocean Avenue is shown as a local Scenic Highway and Pacific Coast Highway is shown as a Proposed Scenic Highway in the Scenic Highway Element. The Main Street Specific Plan design guidelines in Policies 2, 3 and 4 are consistent with these designations and implement scenic features. h. 3.1d Beach Parking; Land Use Element “Additional Coastal Area land should not be committed to beach visitor parking; instead the concept of periphery parking in the outlying areas with a transport system should be explored. The advantage of periphery parking is that beach visitors from inland Orange County could be Intercepted and then transported to the beach via a tram/ minibus system, thus alleviating traffic congestion directly adjacent to the beach.” The Main Street Specific Plan is consistent with this language. No new beach parking is proposed within the Specific Plan area. Better use of existing parking is proposed in Policy 6 through a parking management plan. i. 3.1e Seal Beach Pier; Land Use Element, Page 33 “The Seal Beach Pier, one of the very few piers m use today along the California coastline, should be maintained as its present use to allow for both fishing and pleasure walking to enjoy ocean amenities. Any needed repairs for the pier should be carried out so that the present use can be continued and enhanced.” Main Street Specific Plan City of Seal Beach July 1996 Amended October 2025 Main Street Specific Plan 65 Zucker Systems The Main Street Specific Plan is consistent with the importance of maintaining the Seal Beach Pier. The plan does not specifically make any changes to the Pier. j. 1.3 Central Business Commercial Area Along Main Street; Land Use Element, Page 8 The language in this section concerning Main Street is the same as the Main Street Specific Plan Vision Statement, see Page 1 of the Specific Plan. This page is intentionally blank 1 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 1.A Community Context ............................................................................................. 3 1.B Housing Element Purpose ................................................................................... 4 1.C Organization of the Housing Element ................................................................... 5 1.D Data Sources and Methods .................................................................................. 6 1.E Summary of Public Participation .......................................................................... 6 1.F Consistency with Other General Plan Elements ................................................... 7 1.G Other Statutory Requirements.............................................................................. 7 Section 2 Projected Housing Need ...................................................................................... 9 2.A Regional Housing Needs Allocation ..................................................................... 9 2.B 2021-2029 Seal Beach Housing Needs ............................................................... 9 Section 3 Housing Resources .............................................................................................. 9 3.A Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9 3.B Land Resources ................................................................................................. 10 3.C Opportunities for Energy Conservation .............................................................. 10 Section 4 Goals, Policies, and Programs ........................................................................... 12 4.A Introduction ........................................................................................................ 12 4.B Goals, Policies, and Programs ........................................................................... 13 Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. ......................................................... 13 Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. ........................................................................... 24 Goal 3: Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. ..... 28 Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. ....... 33 Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, or familial status. ... 36 Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. ......................... 42 4.C Quantified Objectives ......................................................................................... 43 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 2 Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology Appendix C: Housing Constraints Appendix D: Existing Programs Review Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Appendix G: Housing Resources 3 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Section 1 Introduction 1.A Community Context Seal Beach encompasses 11.4 square miles in northwestern Orange County south of Long Beach (in Los Angeles County) and north of Huntington Beach (see Figure 1). Incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community, the city has grown while still maintaining its small-town atmosphere. The population of the city remained relatively stable from 1915 to 1944 with little more than 1,000 residents. However, in 1944 the U.S. Navy acquired half of the city to construct the Naval Weapons Station bringing new residents to Seal Beach. The population increased to more than 7,000 persons in 1954 with the development of the Marina Hill subdivision. In 1962, Leisure World retirement community was established with an estimated 9,000 senior residents. In 1966, a large housing tract referred to as College Park East was developed and added an additional 5,000 homeowners. As of January 1, 2021, the Seal Beach population was approximately 24,443 according to the California Department of Finance. The demographic characteristics of Seal Beach have remained relatively stable over the past three decades. With the presence of Leisure World and many condominium developments catering to retired persons, the city has a large number of elderly households. The City’s prime beachfront location appeals to the affluent, both working and retired. Property values in Seal Beach increased as the City has become increasingly built out. Newcomers to the City who can afford high housing costs tend to be those of upper incomes or retired persons with substantial assets. However, the city also has long-time residents who purchased their homes many years ago when real estate was still affordable. Many of these long-time residents have fixed incomes and may have difficulty in maintaining their homes. The housing stock in Seal Beach consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family units with one mobile home park. Though a majority of the housing units are more than 40 years of age, housing is generally in good condition with the exception of some older beach areas and some units in the mobile home park. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 4 Figure 1: Regional Location Map 1.B Housing Element Purpose State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the city or county. The Housing Element is one of the seven mandated elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law, first enacted in 1969, mandates 5 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element that local governments plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law recognizes that, in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely upon the effective implementation of local General Plans and, in particular, local Housing Elements. Housing Element law also requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review local housing elements and to report its written findings to local governments with respect to the Housing Element’s conformance with state law. As mandated by State law, the planning period for this Housing Element extends from 2021 to 2029. This Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: • Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents; • Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households; • Goal 3: Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing; • Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; • Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status; • Goal 6: Encourage more energy efficient use in residential developments. 1.C Organization of the Housing Element The Housing Element consists of the following major components: • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends (Appendix A); • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals (Appendices B and G); • A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meeting the City’s housing needs (Appendix C); and • A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, including housing goals, policies and programs. • A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Housing Element is provided in Appendix D. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 6 1.D Data Sources and Methods In preparing the Housing Element various data sources are utilized. Chapter II – Housing Needs Assessment utilizes HCD-approved data compiled by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is based primarily on the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS). Some population and housing unit data are also prepared by the California Department of Finance (DOF). City records also provide data regarding some issues such as units at risk of conversion and housing construction and demolition activity in the Coastal Zone. 1.E Summary of Public Participation Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played an important role in the formulation and refinement of the City’s housing goals, policies and programs for the next 8 years. Please see Appendix E for information regarding the public involvement process for the 2021 Housing Element update. The City conducted extensive outreach to groups representing lower-income families and special needs populations, including seniors, homeless populations, and people with disabilities. These groups include: • Community Housing Resources, Inc. (Lower Income) • Dayle McIntosh Center (People with Disabilities, Seniors) • Habitat for Humanity of Orange County (Lower Income) • Jamboree Housing Corporation (Lower Income) • Kennedy Commission (Lower Income, Homeless) • Mercy Housing (Lower Income, Homeless) • Neighborhood Housing Services of OC (Lower Income) • OC Housing Finance Trust (Lower Income, Homeless) • Orange County Housing Authority (Lower Income) • Regional Center of Orange County (People with Disabilities) 7 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Comments from these groups included topics including: • The need to accommodate housing for lower-income households (see the various programs under Goals 2 and Goal 5 that are targeted towards addressing the housing needs of lower-income households) • Developing mixed-use areas and housing in the Main Street Downtown area (see Program 1b – Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone and Program 1s – Main Street Specific Plan) • Partnering with the Navy base to develop housing (see Program 1q - Partner with the U.S. Navy and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station) • Removing land use restrictions that may prevent housing (see programs under Goal 3 that remove existing constraints to the devlelopment of housing) • The desire for a more interactive public participation process (see Programs 1g – Community Engagement and Outreach, 5h – Affordable Housing Task Force, and 5k – Affordable Housing Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan as well as the many engagement opportunities described in Appendix E) 1.F Consistency with Other General Plan Elements The elements that comprise the Seal Beach General Plan are required to be internally consistent. Together these elements provide the framework for development of facilities, services and land uses necessary to address the needs and desires of the city residents. The City will ensure consistency between the various General Plan elements and ensure policy direction introduced in one element is reflected in other plan elements. For example, residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element and constraints to development identified in the Safety/Noise Element are reflected in the Housing Element. This Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan elements and is consistent with the policies and proposals set forth by the Plan. As the General Plan is amended from time to time, the City will review the Housing Element for internal consistency and make any necessary revisions. Government Code Section 65302 requires that the Safety and Conservation Elements be reviewed with each update to the Housing Element. 1.G Other Statutory Requirements Senate Bill (SB) 1087 of 2005 requires cities to provide a copy of their Housing Elements to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower-income housing (see Program 3e to this effect). These providers were 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 8 consulted during preparation of the Housing Element update and a copy of the final Housing Element will be provided to these agencies upon adoption. 9 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Section 2 Projected Housing Need 2.A Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing during the period from July 2021 to October 2029. Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Element of their General Plans. The current RHNA was adopted by SCAG in March 2021. The future need for new housing was determined by the forecasted growth in households in a community as well as existing needs due to overpayment and overcrowding. The housing need was adjusted to maintain a desirable level of vacancy to promote housing choice and mobility and to account for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses. Total housing need was then distributed among four income categories on the basis of the current household income distribution. After the total housing need was determined for the SCAG region, SCAG was tasked with allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions based on factors established in State law. The distribution of housing need by income category for each jurisdiction was adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of lower-income households in any community. 2.B 2021-2029 Seal Beach Housing Needs The total housing growth need for the City of Seal Beach during the 2021-2029 planning period is 1,243 units, which is distributed by income category as shown in 0. Table 1: Regional Housing Needs 2021-2029 Very Low* Low Moderate Above Mod Total 258 201 239 545 1,243 Source: SCAG 2021 *Includes extremely low households, estimated to be one-half the very-low need (129 units). Section 3 Housing Resources 3.A Introduction There are a variety of resources available to support the City in implementation of its housing strategy, landowners and developers seeking to provide affordable housing, and residents in need of housing assistance in Seal Beach. This Section provides a summary of land resources available to accommodate future housing in the City. The detailed housing capacity analysis and methodology is contained in Appendix B. Appendix G also includes a list of local, regional, State, 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 10 and federal programs that provide financial and related assistance to support the City in meeting its housing goals. 3.B Land Resources Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government Code requires Housing Elements to contain an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” The analysis of potential development sites is contained in Appendix B. 3.C Opportunities for Energy Conservation State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California Energy Code and are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e., no more than 3 stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building inspection processes. Examples of techniques for reducing residential energy use include the following: • Glazing – Glazing on south facing exterior walls allows for winter sunrays to warm the structure. Reducing glazing and regulating sunlight penetration on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon sunrays from overheating the unit. • Landscaping – Strategically placed vegetation reduces the amount of direct sunlight on the windows. The incorporation of deciduous trees in the landscaping plans along the southern exposure of units reduces summer sunrays, while allowing penetration of winter sunrays to warm the units. • Building Design – The implementation of roof overhangs above southerly facing windows shield the structure from solar rays during the summer months. • Cooling/Heating Systems – The use of attic ventilation systems reduces attic temperatures during the summer months. Solar heating systems for swimming pool 11 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element facilities saves on energy costs. Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow restrictors on all hot water faucets and showerheads. • Weatherizing Techniques – Weatherization techniques such as insulation, caulking, and weather stripping can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55% and for heating as much as 40%. Weatherization measures seal a dwelling unit to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter. • Efficient Use of Appliances – Appliances can be used in ways that increase their energy efficiency. Unnecessary appliances can be eliminated. Proper maintenance and use of stove, oven, clothes dryer, washer, dishwasher, and refrigerator can also reduce energy consumption. New appliance purchases can be made on the basis of efficiency ratings. • Solar Installations – On July 13, 2009, the City Council adopted a comprehensive fee schedule (Resolution 5898). The resolution waived all fees for standard residential solar installations. In addition to these techniques for reducing energy use in dwellings, the City supports broader “smart growth” efforts to encourage compact development and public transportation. For example, Programs 1a and 1b in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter V) include a commitment to process a zoning amendment to facilitate new high-density multi-family residential development on underutilized land in proximity to commercial and employment opportunities and bus transit. Such development contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through lower energy use and vehicle trips (see also Programs 6a and 6c). In addition, as part of the City’s program to assist low-income households in Leisure World to upgrade bathrooms to facilitate aging in place, the City will provide applicants with information on use of green materials and energy conserving measures in home improvements (Program 6b). 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 12 Section 4 Goals, Policies, and Programs 4.A Introduction This section of the Housing Element sets forth the City’s goals, policies, programs and objectives to address the housing needs of Seal Beach residents. This Housing Plan represents a continuing effort on the part of the City to facilitate the provision of housing for all economic segments of the population and persons with special needs, to maintain the condition and affordability of the existing housing stock, and to further fair housing. Table 2 (Section 4.C) identifies the City’s quantified housing objectives over the 2021-2029 period. 13 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 4.B Goals, Policies, and Programs A sound basis for any plan of action is a set of well-defined goals and policies to express the desires and aspirations of the community. The City has established the following housing goals: • Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate- income households. • Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. • Maintain and enhance the quality of existing residential neighborhoods. • Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, or familial status. • Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. Policies Policy 1a Provide adequate sites for a variety of housing types through the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code, while ensuring that environmental and infrastructure constraints are addressed. Policy 1b Where appropriate, encourage the redesignation of vacant and underutilized non-residential land to residential or mixed uses with appropriate densities to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to address the housing needs of all economic segments of the population. Policy 1c Encourage the infilling of vacant residential land. Policy 1d Encourage the recycling of underutilized residential land, where such recycling is consistent with established land use plans. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 14 Policy 1e Provide compatibility of residential uses with surrounding uses through the separation of incompatible uses, construction of adequate buffers, and other land use controls. Policy 1f Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems. Policy 1.g Provide for adequate, freely accessible open space within reasonable distances of all community residents. Programs Program 1a: Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code The Land Use Element of the Seal Beach General Plan designates land within the city for a variety of residential types and densities ranging from 9 to 46 units per acre. The land use designations are implemented through the Zoning Code. Although there is limited developable vacant land remaining, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assigns Seal Beach a housing need of 1,243 units during the 2021-2029 planning period. When sufficient land with appropriate zoning is not available to accommodate regional housing needs, State law requires cities to amend existing land use plans and regulations to create additional capacity for housing development to accommodate the RHNA. As discussed in Appendix B, the City has conducted an evaluation of potential properties where land use regulations will be amended to create additional opportunities for housing or mixed-use development. To address the current shortfall in capacity for potential housing development, the City will process zoning and General Plan amendments for sufficient sites with appropriate densities as identified in Appendix B no later than October 15, 2024, to fully accommodate the City’s remaining housing need. Rezoned sites will comply with the requirements of Government Code §65583.2(h) and (i). Developments at designated housing sites where 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households will be permitted by right, pursuant to State law as applicable. Objective: Maintain adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund 15 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Schedule: Complete rezoning by October 2024, with ongoing modifications as needed to maintain site inventory Program 1b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone In order to implement development at various commercial sites in the sites inventory and to address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income levels, a new mixed- use designation is proposed. Currently, the City’s mixed-use designation (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density or LC/RMD) does not have a high enough density minimum to meet State law requirements for lower-income housing. The City is creating a mixed- use district (the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone) that has a minimum density of 40 du/acre and a maximum density of 46 du/acre. This district will be applied to larger commercial sites as described in Appendix B. As part of the creation of the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone, the City will create incentives to encourage development of units affordable to moderate and lower-income households, as well as modifications to reduce or eliminate minimum unit sizes to create the most viable development opportunities. In addition, the new MC/RHD zone will not allow 100 percent nonresidential projects. Objective: Create a mixed-use zone that meets state requirements for RHNA site designation, specifically to facilitate housing for lower income households. The zoning process will accommodate State requirements to allow for: a minimum residential density of 40 units per acre and 46 units per acre on larger, developed sites; a large enough size to permit at least 16 units; exclusively residential uses; at least 50 percent of the building floor area of a mixed-use development to be dedicated to residential uses; and housing by-right with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households. The definitions of “persons and families of low and moderate income,” “lower income households,” and “very low-income households” as set forth in Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50150 shall apply. The City shall engage with affected property owners, the Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the zoning process to ensure the development standards can result in the development of the maximum number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Complete site rezoning necessary to accommodate the RHNA by October 2024, with ongoing implementation. Engage in outreach with Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the rezoning process at least once. Schedule: Ordinance adoption by April 2025. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 16 Program 1c: Promote Available Housing Incentives and Evaluate Effectiveness To enhance the feasibility of affordable housing development, the City will offer incentives and concessions such as expedited processing, administrative assistance with applications for funding assistance, and modified development standards consistent with State law, including, but not limited to, density bonus law, permit streamlining under SB35 for projects with at least 50 percent affordability, and SB 330. The City will update its website to include this information in greater detail for potential developers. The City will evaluate the effectiveness of affordable housing incentives and concessions on an annual basis with empirical data (development of units) and anecdotal discussions with developers. To the extent that available incentives do not result in the construction of significant numbers of affordable units, the City will examine revised or new incentives and review processes that may be implemented. Objective: Make information on available incentives and concessions readily available, and evaluate their efficacy on a regular basis Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Website updates by December 2024, evaluation on an ongoing annual basis. If available incentives demonstrate ineffectiveness by the end of the 2025 calendar year, the City will undertake revisions to available incentives in 2026. Program 1d: Annual Progress Report The City will report its progress in implementing this program to HCD on an annual basis, pursuant to Government Code §65400. Objective: Maintain compliance with State law and provide transparency on progress towards the RHNA Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: April of each year Program 1e: Ensure No Net Loss of Housing Capacity The City shall comply with the “no net loss” provisions of Government Code §65863 through the implementation of an ongoing project-by-project evaluation process to ensure that adequate sites are available to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA allocation throughout the planning period. The City shall not reduce the allowable density of any site in the residential land inventory, nor approve a development project at a lower density than assumed in the land inventory, unless both of the following findings are made: 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element; and 17 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 2. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City’s remaining share of regional housing need pursuant to Government Code §65584. If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the Housing Element land inventory not being adequate to accommodate the City’s remaining share of its lower- or moderate-income regional housing need, the City may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate and available sites with an equal or greater residential density so that there is no net loss of residential capacity. Objective: Maintain adequate inventory of sites for residential development according to State law Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing implementation Program 1f: Replacement Housing Program If residential development on any property rezoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation involves demolition of existing residential units, the City will require replacement pursuant to Gov. Code §65583.2(g)(3). Objective: Maintain no net loss of housing, with specific focus on housing affordable to lower - income residents by developing a formal, ongoing procedure for analyzing loss of units and replacement requirements. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing implementation Program 1g: Community Engagement and Outreach A goal of the City is to create and maintain desirable living areas for residents by protecting residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses. The City recognizes that opinions on compatibility may change over time. A community engagement and outreach program will be implemented through the review of proposed amendments to the General Plan and zoning regulations to ensure changes reflect the needs of the community while also expanding housing opportunity sites in accordance with the RHNA allocation and State law. Objective: Effectively utilize the zoning and General Plan amendment process to implement appropriate land use controls to ensure the compatibility of residential areas with surrounding uses. At least one community meeting during the zoning and General Plan amendment process, by February 2024. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 18 Schedule: Completed commensurate with Zoning Code updates to be completed by February 2024 Program 1h: Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can provide affordable housing options for a wide range of household types, many of which may have very low- or extremely low- incomes. The City will continue to encourage ADU production consistent with State law, which shall include: 1. Revisions to the City’s adopted ADU Ordinance as needed for consistency with State law. 2. Pre-approve ADU plans currently under development by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) that can be customized at minimal cost to the property owner. 3. Website updates to explain the permitting process in simplified terms, and offer direction to the resources offered through the State and other agencies as applicable. 4. Creation and distribution of marketing materials to advise property owners of the opportunity to create ADUs and to encourage the occupancy of these units by households/persons with lower incomes. Objective: Provide a streamlined and understandable process for the development of ADUs and JADUs, supported by incentives and resources as they may be available. Adopt pre-approved plans. Permit 10 ADUs during the planning period. Geographic Targeting: Distribute ADU marketing materials with a focus on low density neighborhoods. Responsible Party: Community Development; Planning Commission; City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Revise existing ordinance as needed based on changes to State law, and website updates by September 2024, with ongoing implementation as needed. Seek out architects or builders willing to submit ADU plans for pre-approval by December 2024; adopt pre-approved ADU plans by June 2025 Program 1i: Accessory Dwelling Units Amnesty Program The City will establish a program to allow owners with existing unpermitted ADUs to obtain permits to legalize the ADUs during the 2021-2029 planning period. The Amnesty Program shall consist of two parts: 1) education; and 2) incentives. Education will require creation of an information guide to help educate and inform owners of the importance and benefits of legalizing and bringing their unpermitted units into compliance. The information guide will include an overview of the necessary life safety code requirements and improvements that will need to be provided for permit issuance and advice on how to discuss and ask questions of permitting staff without the risk of Code Enforcement action. The information guide will also explain how the City’s ADU regulations have created an easier path towards compliance where ADUs were previously not feasible. The 19 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element City will also create incentives, such as fee waivers, reductions or courtesy inspections to encourage property owners to seek permits to legalize units and make them safe for habitation. Objective: Encourage the identification and permitting of two unpermitted ADUs and confirm that the units comply with applicable standards. Geographic Targeting: Distribute ADU information guide in Old Town Seal Beach. Responsible Party: Community Development; City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Develop program by October 2024. Program 1j: Accessory Dwelling Units Monitoring Program The City will annually monitor its progress in permitting ADUs during the planning period with the intent of increasing the number of ADUs. Monitoring will occur in conjunction with the Annual Housing Element Progress Report. The analysis will track applications for ADUs, location, affordability, and other important features. If ADU permitting falls below five (5) ADUs for more than two consecutive years, the City shall re-evaluate the City's ADU standards and procedures and modify accordingly within six (6) months. The City will conduct additional outreach and marketing in addition to modifications to regulations and processes. Objective: Provide a streamlined and understandable process for the development of ADUs and JADUs, supported by resources as they may be available. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Create monitoring program within six (6) months of adoption of Housing Element; annual monitoring and program revisions as may be warranted Program 1k: Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Transitional/ Supportive Housing Housing and the continuum of care for those at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness has changed dramatically in Orange County over the last five years. Housing options ranging from temporary emergency shelters to permanent supportive units are available now in much greater numbers, and tied to a range of services and support networks at the regional level to leverage resources and more comprehensively address problems. AB 139 (2019) revised State law regarding parking standards for emergency shelters. AB 2339 (2022) further revised the law to require zones where shelters are permitted to also allow residential uses and obligates the City to evaluate the opportunity for shelter development on designated sites. To ensure that City development standards and procedures continue to provide adequate sites for emergency shelters, parking requirements for emergency shelters will be amended consistent with current law. In 2018, AB 2162 amended State law to require that 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 20 supportive housing be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. AB 101 (2019) added the requirement that “low barrier navigation centers” meeting specified standards be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and in non- residential zones permitting multi-family uses pursuant to Government Code §65660 et seq. The City will amend its Zoning Code to require transitional and supportive housing uses to conform only to those regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, in compliance with AB 2339. The City will monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing and will work with the appropriate organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents. The amendment will also ensure consistency with all other applicable state laws. Objectives: (a) Continue to facilitate the provision of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing consistent with State law; (b) Process a Code amendment to amend City regulations for emergency shelters, supportive housing and low-barrier navigation centers consistent with State law. Permit 1 emergency shelter, low barrier navigation center, or transitional supportive housing development during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development; Planning Commission; City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Process a code amendment related to emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, and transitional and supportive housing concurrent with the Zoning Code update for RHNA sites, with ongoing evaluation. Program 1l: Provision of Adequate Public Facilities and Services New residential developments bring new residents to the City, placing an increased demand on public facilities and services. To adequately serve its existing and future residents, the City must ensure that new residential developments are provided with adequate public facilities and services. The City will continue to utilize the environmental and other development review procedures to ensure that all new residential developments are provided with adequate public facilities and services. If existing public facilities or services are inadequate to serve new development consistent with land use plans, the City will work cooperatively with service providers to expand capacity where feasible. Objective: Maintain adequate public facilities and services Responsible Party: Public Works Department, service providers Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing implementation as development occurs 21 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 1m: Streamlined Permit Processing and Transparency SB 35 (2017) requires streamlined ministerial approval procedures under certain circumstances. The City will establish and implement written procedures to ensure conformance with SB 35 and other applicable State laws. In addition, all zoning, development standards, and fees will continue to be posted on the City’s website in conformance with State transparency requirements. Objective: Reduce barriers to housing development through simplified processing and available information consistent with SB 35. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Written procedures will be developed by January 2024 with ongoing updates to the website and other informational material Program 1n: SB 9 Lot Splits Adopt an Ordinance to expand the housing supply in High Resource low density zones by allowing for lot splits and duplexes under the parameters of SB 9, recognizing potential conflicts with the Coastal Act. In coordination with research being conducted at the State level, pursue opportunities to incentivize homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9. Objective: Reduce barriers to housing development through simplified processing; create incentives to make units created affordable. Process 2 SB 9 projects during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Analyze opportunities and resources available to homeowners and develop online materials by December 2024. Program 1o: Expedited Processing for Subdivision Maps including Affordable Units Adopt written procedures to expedite the review of subdivision maps, including parcel maps, tract maps and lot line adjustments, when the project includes a certain number or percentage of units affordable to lower-income households. Objective: Reduce barriers to housing development through simplified processing; create incentives to make units created affordable Responsible Party: Community Development, Public Works, City Clerk Funding Source: General Fund 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 22 Schedule: Draft internal procedures within one year of adoption of Housing Element; prepare handout for distribution at the public counter and inclusion on the City’s website within one month of approval of procedures. Program 1p: Partner with the U.S. Navy and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station The City will continue to collaborate with the Navy on development of housing at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) at their selected development site along Pacific Coast Highway. Furthermore, the City owns a small parcel of land within the fenced area of the Naval Weapons Station, and is actively communicating with U.S. Navy employees to formally open discussions for use of the parcel as affordable housing. The Navy may have joint interest in housing as well, for active duty servicemembers or potentially veterans. Objective: Create an opportunity for affordable housing development on City property in partnership with the U.S. Navy through quarterly or more frequent meetings. Responsible Party: Community Development, City Manager, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, outside grant sources Schedule: Underway and ongoing Program 1q: Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with State Law. The City will amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and 17021.6. Objective: Allow employee/farmworker housing consistent with State law. Responsible Party: Community Development, City Manager, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, outside grant sources Schedule: December 2024 Program 1r: Main Street Specific Plan The City will modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing at select properties. The City recognizes that although amendments made to facilitate housing at select properties in the Main Street Specific Plan are not accounted for in the City’s sites inventory, this program nevertheless represents a good faith effort by the City to produce additional housing. Objective: Allow housing at select locations in the Main Street Specific Plan. Permit two residential units in the Main Street Specific Plan during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Update Main Street Specific Plan as described by April 2025. 23 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 24 Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low - and moderate-income households. Policies Policy 2a Expand housing opportunities for households with special needs, including the elderly, persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, large households, female-headed households, and the homeless. Policy 2b Provide incentives to encourage the development of new affordable housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including extremely-low-income persons. Policy 2c Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to expand housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, including persons with special needs. Policy 2d Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are: • located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities; • adequately served by public utilities; • adequately served by police and fire protection; • minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or other environmental constraints; and • outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households. Programs Program 2a: Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process Currently, the Planning Commission reviews and approves incentives granted as part of a density bonus. To streamline the review process and provide certainty for developers, the City shall amend its Zoning Code governing density bonuses. The amendment shall ensure that the ordinance reflects all current provisions of State law, and eliminates the need for Planning Commission review to grant density bonus incentives. Objective: Streamline the density bonus provisions and ensure City regulations reflect State law. Permit at least one density bonus project during the planning period. 25 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Amendment to be completed as part of broader Zoning Code update scheduled for completion in April 2025 Program 2b: Density Bonus Incentives and Information The Seal Beach Zoning Code contains density bonus regulations and procedures to facilitate the production of low- and moderate-income housing by providing incentives that reduce per unit development costs. State Density Bonus law was recently amended to provide additional incentives for affordable housing production. The City will create incentives that may be provided to further entice developers to take advantage of density bonuses, such as reducing processing timelines and providing greater certainty in the review process. The City will develop informational material for its website on how developers can utilize density bonus incentives to increase housing. These materials will be simple to understand and highlight the benefits of using the density bonus provisions. The materials will be updated following adoption of the Zoning Code amendment described in Program 2a. Objective: Create incentives for residential developers to take advantage of density bonus provisions to create affordable housing units; make information on density bonus incentives readily available Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Incentives to be finalizes and website updates to be completed by July 2025 and updated on an ongoing basis as applicable, including following adoption of the Zoning Code update in October 2024. Program 2c: Affordable Housing Resources The City will facilitate the development of quality affordable housing through a variety of actions, including pursuing additional funding sources and partnering with private and non-profit housing developers. To achieve this, the City will take the following actions: • Maintain and annually update a list of non-profit housing developers active in Orange County, • Maintain and annually update a list of properties with affordable units in the City. • Contact and provide technical assistance to qualified non-profit housing developers to explore opportunities for affordable housing development annually, or whenever development opportunities arise. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 26 • Monitor funding resources, such as Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) funds and Low- Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), that may become available from time to time through the County, the State, or the Federal governments to subsidize affordable housing development, and seek to partner with developers to connect to those resources. • Maintain an inventory of residential sites available for development continuously on the City website. • Prioritize assistance for extremely-low-income (ELI) units and projects such as single room occupancy (SRO) and supportive housing commensurate with the City’s regional housing need whenever housing development is proposed. • Provide technical assistance to affordable housing developers in preparation of grant funding applications. • Become member of the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Collaborate with the U.S. Navy, County of Orange, and any other public entities owning land within the city to convert surplus properties to affordable housing. Objective: Connect three housing developers annually to share technical knowledge and resources to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Establish relationships with two additional affordable housing providers during the planning period through annual meetings to discuss possible sites and opportunities. Responsible Party: Community Development, Finance, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Most activities for Program 2c are ongoing in nature; membership in the Orange County Housing Finance Trust was completed in June 2022. Program 2d: Land Write Downs and Assistance with Off-Site Improvements Land costs and requirements for off-site improvements are important factors in determining the cost of housing. As discussed above in Program 1q (Partner with the U.S. Navy and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station), the City currently owns a small parcel of land within the fenced area of the Naval Weapons Station and has active communication with U.S. Navy employees to open discussions for using the parcel as affordable housing, which may be used for affordable housing for active duty service members or veterans. To facilitate development of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households the City may subsidize the cost of the parcel of land on the Naval Weapons Station and off-site improvements of the land when feasible. The City will also seek funding sources for this activity. This program will be implemented through discussions with project proponents, including the U.S. Navy, during the development review process. Objective: Increase the number of affordable housing units Responsible Party: Community Development, Finance, City Council 27 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Funding Source: General Fund, unless alternative grant funding is available Schedule: Ongoing Program 2e: Explore and Obtain Funding to Subsidize Construction of Affordable Units The State of California makes funds available annually to support the development of affordable housing units. Examples include CalHome and PLHA funds. These funds are allocated to the County of Orange. Seal Beach is eligible to apply for these funds to support eligible projects. The City will develop expertise in affordable housing funding sources and the application processes. Objective: Encourage development of 698 affordable housing units during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development, Finance, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing Program 2f: Regional Coordination of Housing Issues The City will continue to participate in other programs that facilitate information sharing and housing production at a regional scale. The City will attend quarterly OCHA Cities Advisory Committee meetings to be up to date on programs offered by the County or other entities that may incentivize different types of affordable housing and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. As noted in other programs, relevant information will be posted on the City’s website and distributed through other channels such as public libraries, community newsletters, and social media. Objective: Leverage resources to augment affordability in housing Responsible Party: Community Development, OCHA Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Quarterly meetings with ongoing updates to information provided to developers and citizens on the City’s website Program 2g: Commercial Density Bonus Amend the Zoning Code consistent with AB 1551 (2022), which allows a commercial developer to obtain one of six commercial density bonuses by partnering with a housing developer to provide qualifying affordable housing (at least 30% total units available to low-income tenants, or 15% affordable to very low-income tenants) through either: directly building affordable housing units, donating land for affordable housing units, or providing direct funding to an affordable housing developer for development of an affordable housing project. This program is intended to incentivize affordable housing development at the City’s housing sites that are currently developed with commercial uses, which will be rezoned as described by Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone). 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 28 Objective: Streamline the density bonus provisions and ensure City regulations reflect State law Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Amendment to be completed as part of broader Zoning Code update scheduled for completion in October 2024 Program 2h: Promote Orange County’s Mortgage Assistance Program Low-income first-time homebuyer residents are eligible to participate in the County of Orange Mortgage Assistance Program. This program provides deferred payment downpayment assistance loans to first-time homebuyers whose annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income who will occupy the home as their primary residence. Applicants are required to attend a homebuyer education workshop. The City will continue to promote the Mortgage Assistance program on its Housing Resources webpage and refer first-time homebuyers to the County’s Mortgage Assistance Program. Also see Program 5b (Housing Information and Referral Services) Objective: Refer 2 first-time homebuyers to the County’s Mortgage Assistance Program during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development, County of Orange Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing Goal 3: Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Policies Policy 3a Assist City residents in securing decent safe and affordable housing. Policy 3b Conserve the affordability of housing units assisted with public funds through affordability covenants or resale controls. Policy 3c Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to maintain and/or improve the affordability of existing housing units to low- and moderate-income households. 29 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Programs Program 3a: Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Assistance The Housing Choice Voucher Program, long known as “Section 8,” is a federal program that extends rental subsidies to very low- and extremely low-income individuals and families. The subsidy represents the difference between 30% of monthly income of the household and the allowable rent determined by the Section 8 program to increase housing affordability for the voucher recipient. Seal Beach is not a direct recipient of Section 8 vouchers, but it does participate in the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program through the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The number of vouchers used in Seal Beach is lower than usage in almost every other community in Orange County. Most Section 8 subsidies are issued by OCHA in the form of vouchers that permit tenants to choose their own housing. The City will make information available regarding the process of obtaining a Section 8 voucher, while noting this can be a challenging process due to lack of available funding. In addition, OCHA has recently partnered with other entities, including United Way, to expand landlord understanding of the Section 8 voucher process, and provide additional resources to make property owners more willing to accept vouchers. The City will continue to coordinate with OCHA on a quarterly basis, and provide up to date information on its website for landlords that may be interested in participating in the program. Information will also be shared through other outlets such as local libraries, Leisure World, and City social media and/or newsletters. Objective: Increase information available on Section 8 vouchers as a means of increasing affordability for households; ensure that landlords are aware of the program and encouraged to participate; and understand how and where vouchers are used within the City. Responsible Party: Community Development, County of Orange Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Website updates to be completed by December 2023, with ongoing updates and partnership with OCHA on a quarterly basis. Program 3b: Mortgage Credit Certificates The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) is a federal program that allows qualified first-time homebuyers to take an annual credit against federal income taxes of up to 15 percent of the annual interest paid on the applicant’s mortgage. This enables homebuyers to have more income available to qualify for a mortgage loan and make the monthly mortgage payments. The value of the MCC must be taken into consideration by the mortgage lender in underwriting the loan and may be used to adjust the borrower’s federal income tax withholding. The MCC program has covenant restrictions to ensure the affordability of the participating homes for a period of 15 years. The MCC program is administered through the County of Orange (https://www.ocgov.com/residents/mccp). 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 30 The City will promote the MCC program on its website and other available outlets. Objective: Increase awareness of the MCC program to increase affordability for homebuyers Responsible Party: Community Development, County of Orange Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Website update was completed in January 2023 with ongoing maintenance and monitoring for changes to the program Program 3c: Local Coastal Program Seal Beach does not currently have an approved Local Coastal Program (LCP). As a result, all projects located within the portion of the city that is within the Coastal Zone are subject to review by the California Coastal Commission, in addition to the required City approvals. This additional requirement represents a possible impediment to housing development within the Coastal Zone. To address this issue, the City is currently working on the preparation of an LCP, funded in part by a grant from the Coastal Commission. The Environmental Quality Control Board will provide guidance to staff in this effort. A draft Land Use Plan, the first of two major components of t he LCP was submitted to the Coastal Commission for review in May 2023 and is currently awaiting feedback. Objective: Streamline the development process by eliminating a separate process for Coastal Zone approvals Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, Coastal Commission Grant Funding Schedule: Based on conversations with the California Coastal Commission and expanded public outreach, target a draft Local Coastal Program by December 2025. Program 3d: Implementation of new Planning and Permitting Software The City integrated online plan check in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to simplify the permitting process. Based on the success of that effort, the City has recently initiated transition to a new planning and permitting software which will allow for even greater digital and remote access to the Community Development Department. Digital submittal, turnaround, and record keeping will continue to speed the permitting process, therefore reducing costs associated with development. Objective: Streamline the development process through software implementation and online access to planning and permitting. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Completed August 2024. 31 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 3e: Priority Water and Sewer Services Continue to make service providers aware of the City’s housing plans and encourage them to expedite service to restricted lower income residential projects Objective: Inform service providers of plans to develop housing affordable to lower-income households so those service needs can be prioritized Responsible Party: Community Development, Public Works Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing Program 3f: Implementation of AB 2234 (Streamlining of Ministerial Permits) The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) sets forth specific timeframes for cities to determine the completeness of discretionary applications, and to review those applications once deemed complete. AB 2234 (2022) amends the Planning and Zoning Law to incorporate similar PSA streamlining provisions by requiring cities to publish formal application checklists for post- entitlement housing development permits, as well as examples of complete applications for specific types of housing developments; sets forth timelines to respond after the city receives an application by identifying any specific information from the published checklist that was missing from the application; and requires the City to complete its review of any complete application within 30 business days (for developments with 25 homes or fewer) or 60 days (for developments with more than 25 homes). Objective: Streamline the development process for ministerial permits Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Completed as of January 2024. Program 3g: Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes To remove governmental constraints and facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code to: • Allow unlicensed residential care facilities and group homes independent of the number of residents (including six or fewer or seven or more residents) by-right in all residential zones (i.e., the RLD, RMD, RHD zones) subject to only the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and objective zoning standards that apply to all single- family residences to ensure approval certainty; • Allow State-licensed residential care facilities and group homes of seven or more persons by Conditional Use Permit in all residential zones (i.e., the RLD, RMD, RHD zones) subject to objective standards; and 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 32 • Consolidate the definition of group homes and residential care facilities to simplify the permitting process. Objective: Approve one residential care facility/group home during the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Make Zoning Code Amendments by December 2026. Program 3h: Remove Minimum Unit Size Requirements Residential districts currently require minimum unit sizes of 950 to 1,200 sq. ft (this does not apply to ADU or JADUs). In recognition of the need to promote higher densities and a range of housing types, the City proposes to eliminate or substantially reduce the minimum unit size in the Code Minimum allowable unit sizes would not be smaller than those allowed by State law (such as for efficiency dwelling units, codified at Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1). This change will occur as part of a broader Zoning Code update to implement various provisions of the Housing Element. Objective: Reduce minimum unit size constraints to housing development, especially to promote affordable housing. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ordinance adoption by October 2024 Program 3i: Update Findings for Housing Projects to Ensure Objectivity The City will update the findings that the Community Development Director must make in review of development permits for zoning conformance to ensure that the findings are only objective findings when they are applied to housing developments. Objective: Review housing projects against objective approval findings. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Make Zoning Code Amendments by December 2026. Program 3j: Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units To facilitate housing, including the development of “affordable-by-design” units, the City will reduce its parking requirement for studios and one-bedroom units from 2 spaces to 1 space. Objective: Encourage the development of studios and 1-bedroom housing units, which are affordable to lower-income and special needs groups. 33 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Make Zoning Code Amendments by December 2026. Program 3k: Remove Conditional Use Permit Requirements for Single-Room Occupancy Units In 2013, the Zoning Code was amended to allow Single-Residences (SROs) subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the RHD zone. The City will update the Zoning Code to remove the CUP requirement for SROs in the RHD Zone and allow SROs as permitted by-right uses. Objective: Allow SROs as uses allowed by-right in the RHD Zone. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Make Zoning Code Amendments by December 2026. Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. Policies Policy 4a Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible. Policy 4b Promote the replacement of any substandard units that cannot be rehabilitated. Policy 4c Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources available to assist in the improvement of residential property. Policy 4d Encourage the continued affordability of housing units rehabilitated with public funds. Policy 4e Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 34 Policy 4f Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods, preventing the encroachment of incompatible commercial or industrial uses into established neighborhoods. Policy 4g Assist residents, wherever possible, in securing decent, safe and adequate housing. Policy 4h Promote a safe, healthful, aesthetically pleasing environment that strengthens individual and family life. Policy 4i Preserve and enhance viable residential neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity. Policy 4j Upgrade and improve community facilities and municipal services in keeping with community needs. Policy 4k Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety, and aesthetic conditions. Policy 4l Periodically reexamine local building and zoning codes for possible amendments to reduce construction costs and processing times without sacrificing basic health and safety considerations. Programs Program 4a: Condominium Conversion As a means to preserve the affordable housing stock, Chapter 11.4.80 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code regulates procedures for the conversion of existing apartment complexes to condominium ownerships, including protections for tenant rights. Objective: Reduce impacts to lower income households in the event of a condominium conversion project. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing 35 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 4b: Housing Conditions Monitoring Overall, the housing stock in Seal Beach is well-maintained. However, the beach area contains scattered housing units with deferred maintenance issues. The City has targeted the beach area for housing condition monitoring. Periodically, the City’s code enforcement and building officials survey the area to identify properties requiring maintenance or repair. The most recent windshield survey conducted by City staff in late 2022 identified 44 units in potential need of maintenance. If Code violations or other significant problems are found to exist, the City will contact property owners to seek corrective actions. Objective: Maintain attractive residential stock to encourage future housing that is also safe and healthy for a range of income levels Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Annual windshield survey and outreach to owners of affected properties. Program 4c: Provide Home Renovation Assistance to Lower Income Households through Community Development Block Grants Through the CDBG program, the City assisted 1,290 lower-income households in the Leisure World community to update bathroom facilities to allow for aging in place. Total expenditures from July 2005 through December 2021 were $2,897,989. Leisure World homeownership is substantially more affordable than in other areas of the city due to the age restrictions in place. This program has helped to keep lower-income residents in a more affordable housing environment with services that support aging households. The City will continue to work with the County of Orange to obtain CDBG or other grant funding resources to assist lower-income households, including those outside the Leisure World neighborhood when available Objective: Assist 40 income-qualified households with improvements that support their ability to remain in their housing units. Responsible Party: Community Development, County of Orange Funding Source: CDBG or other grant funding as may be available from time to time Schedule: Ongoing, with renewals of funding on a three-year basis, subject to modifications by the County of Orange. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 36 Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, or familial status. Policies Policy 5a Promote fair housing practices throughout the community. Policy 5b Encourage the development of housing that meets the special needs of disabled and elderly households. Policy 5c Promote the provision of housing to meet the needs of families and households of all sizes. Programs Program 5a: Fair Housing Resources The City enforces the Fair Housing Act within its jurisdiction. To achieve fair housing goals, the City participates in Orange County’s contract with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) to provide fair housing and tenant landlord counseling services. FHCOC is contracted to perform fair housing audits and to investigate fair housing complaints. The City will strengthen its relationship with FHCOC better understand fair housing complaints and to ensure residents and landlords understand their rights and available resources. Objective: Provide free Fair Housing education and counseling services through the following actions: • Continue to refer fair housing inquiries to FHCOC • Continue to support FHCOC to provide community education by sponsoring annual workshops for tenants and landlords • Provide informational brochures at City Hall and other public facilities and include fair housing information on its website • Meet annually with FHCOC staff to track fair housing issues and identify patterns in the City; identify appropriate actions to address patterns Responsible Party: Community Development, City Council, County of Orange Funding Source: CDBG Schedule: Ongoing 37 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 5b: Housing Information and Referral Services The Orange County Housing Authority provides housing information and referral services for persons seeking affordable rental and homeownership opportunities. The City will work collaboratively with OCHA to update and distribute information on services and will post relevant information on the City’s website. Objective: Refer at least 5 households annually to OCHA to provide information on affordable housing availability. Responsible Party: Community Development, OCHA staff Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing Program 5c: Promote Housing Choice Vouchers to Landlords The City will conduct outreach to owners/managers of rental properties in Seal Beach to encourage participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Once a list of properties registered with the County has been assembled, the City will coordinate with the OCHA about using the mobility counseling program. The mobility program identifies options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic support to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas. Objective: Conduct outreach to 10 owners/managers of rental properties in Seal Beach to provide information on affordable housing availability; expand the number of Housing Choice Vouchers used in the City by two in the planning period. Responsible Party: Community Development, OCHA staff Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Outreach to landlords by March 2025 Program 5d: Regional Collaboration to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing As a part of the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle, an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice1 was created for the Orange County region, with the County of Orange participating on behalf of the Urban County funding structure for federal CDBG and HOME funds. The AI identified several potential strategies to affirmatively further fair housing. Community Development staff will work with County staff on a quarterly basis to discuss program development and implementation 1 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Prepared by the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, May 19, 2020. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 38 options to affirmatively further fair housing, based on the findings of the AI. The City will also implement relevant recommendations from the AI. Seal Beach will amend its Zoning Code to provide more sites for higher density housing (particularly see Program 1b above, zoning amendment date targeted for April 2025); promote density bonuses to include affordable units in new developments; and implement state housing regulations. The City will also promote the development of ADUs (Programs 1h, 1i, and 1j) Objective: Support regional strategies to affirmatively further fair housing Responsible Party: Community Development, OCHA staff Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: See relevant programs referred to above. Program 5e: Reasonable Accommodation Provisions A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The City will review and revise its Reasonable Accommodation process and findings to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements. The City will continue to process requests for reasonable accommodation at no charge to the applicant. Objective: Reduce barriers for disabled persons Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Amendment to be completed as part of broader Zoning Code update scheduled for completion in October 2024 Program 5f: Preparation of an Environmental Justice Element The City will undertake preparation of an Environmental Justice Element for the General Plan following a finding of substantial compliance for the Housing Element, which will provide additional support for affirmatively furthering fair housing by considering air quality, access to facilities, safe and sanitary housing, and crime prevention. Objective: Reduce and address constraints that may hinder fair housing Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Planned completion in April 2025. 39 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 5g: Accessible Housing Require a portion of extremely-low- to moderate-income housing units (both publicly and privately sponsored) to be physically accessible or adaptable to persons with disabilities. Objective: Reduce barriers for disabled persons Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Requirement to be established as part of broader Zoning Code update scheduled for completion in October 2024 Program 5h: Fair Housing Task Force The City will create a Fair Housing Task Force to engage in outreach with lower-income and special needs households or their representatives (e.g., school district employees, Council or Commission representation, local non-profits, and/or local religious leaders). The Fair Housing Task Force will work together to determine and address fair housing issues in the City on a quarterly basis. Objective: Determine and address fair housing issues on a routine basis. The City will accomplish the following actions: • City staff will coordinate with the County Planning Department regarding impacts on Rossmoor and continued outreach efforts. • Solicit feedback through a citywide feedback form focused on fair housing issues. • Host four community workshops between 2025 and 2026 on fair housing issues led by the Fair Housing Task Force. • Provide translation services when needed. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: August 2024: Identify Task Force members. December 2024: Host first meeting with Task Force and City staff to determine Task Force mission and priorities and determine meeting schedule for 2025-2026. Program 5i: Affordable Housing Benefits Campaign The City will conduct outreach to educate the community about affordable housing and its benefits to the community, including providing housing affordable to important public servants, such as teachers, police officers, firefighters, and their families. This would include multi-lingual educational flyers about affordable housing projects in Seal Beach and/or the surrounding region. Objective: Educate and inform members of the public on the benefits of affordable housing projects. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 40 Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Prepare outreach materials by September 2024 and distribute throughout the planning period biannually. Program 5j: Fair Housing Mobility Program Housing mobility means a greater range of housing options to improve one’s housing, including housing unit size, location, access to opportunities, and amenities. To improve housing mobility and new housing choices in areas throughout the City, the City will employ a suite of actions to be targeted in highest resource areas and single-family neighborhoods throughout the City, including targeting education, funding, program resources, and outreach with an overall goal of expanding housing mobility and opportunities affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households. Actions and land use strategies to expand and diversify housing stock in Seal Beach include: • Adopt a new mixed-use zone that meets state requirements for RHNA site designation to address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income levels. Currently, the City’s mixed-use designation (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density or LC/RMD) does not have a high enough density minimum to meet State law requirements for lower-income housing. The City is creating a mixed-use district (that allows higher density and will create incentives to encourage development of units affordable to moderate and lower-income households, as well as modifications to reduce or eliminate minimum unit sizes to create the most viable development opportunities. Make information on available incentives and concessions readily available, and evaluate their efficacy on a regular basis. (See Program 1b). • Offer incentives and concessions (e.g., expedited processing, administrative assistance with applications for funding assistance) to enhance the feasibility of affordable housing development. The City will also update its website to include available affordable housing resources and incentives for potential developers. Additionally, the City will evaluate the effectiveness of affordable housing incentives and concessions on an annual basis with empirical data (development of units) and anecdotal discussions with developers. (See Program 1c). • Eliminate or substantially reduce the minimum unit size in the Code to promote higher densities and a range of housing types, as well as housing mobility and access to areas of opportunity (Program 3h). • Reduce parking requirements for studios and 1-bedroom units to promote the creation of small unit sizes affordable to lower income groups (Program 3j). • Remove conditional use permit requirement for single room occupancy units (Program 3k) Create a Fair Housing Task Force to engage in outreach with lower-income households, special needs households, and community representatives (e.g., school district 41 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element employees, Council or Commission representation, local non-profits, and/or local religious leaders). The Fair Housing Task Force will work together to determine and address fair housing issues in the City on a quarterly basis. (See Program 5h). Objective: Implement a suite of housing mobility and incentive programs to increase the availability of a variety of housing types throughout Seal Beach, with a combined quantified objective of 1,243 new units. Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Found Timeframe: See respective programs for program timelines. Annually review progress and effectiveness as part of Annual Progress Report (APR). Program 5k: Affordable Housing Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan The City will require developers of affordable housing projects or projects with affordable units to implement an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan to outreach to a diverse population, extending outreach to nearby communities in Orange County, especially to workers in the City who do not live in the City. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the surrounding region. Also see Program 2.C for additional affordable housing resources. Objective: Inform lower-income persons who work in Seal Beach but live outside of the City of affordable housing opportunities. Reach 10 lower-income persons per affordable housing development. Responsible Party: Community Development, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Require an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan on an affordable project-by-project basis. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 42 Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. Policies Policy 6a Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. Policy 6b Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. Programs Program 6a: Green Building Techniques “Green buildings” are structures that are designed, renovated, re-used or operated in a manner that enhances resource efficiency and sustainability. These structures reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. The City’s Community Development Department will distribute a Green Building Tips handout for both homeowners and builders and post this information on its website. Objective: Increase energy efficiency in housing units to reduce overall operating costs Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing Program 6b: Housing Rehabilitation Program As part of the City’s program to assist households in renovating bathrooms to allow aging in place (Program 4c), the City will provide recipients with information regarding the use of energy green materials and energy/water conserving measures in home improvements. Objective: Increase energy efficiency in housing units to reduce overall operating costs Responsible Party: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Create information by December 2023; implementation ongoing 43 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 6c: Promote Smart Growth The City will continue to promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development commensurate with the City’s regional housing need in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips concurrent with Program 1a. Objective: Reduce reliance on vehicle travel where possible to foster healthier neighborhoods. Responsible Party: Community Development, Public Works Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Smart Growth principles will be incorporated into the Zoning Code update to be completed in October 2024 with ongoing evaluation. The introduction of residential uses to existing commercial sites is one example of the strategies to be included in the code update. 4.C Quantified Objectives The City’s quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation and conservation are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Quantified Objectives 2021-2029 Program Category Income Category Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Totals New Construction 129 129 201 239 545 1,243 Rehabilitation 40 220 - 246 Conservation1 25 75 100 1. Preservation of units in Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-1 Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment Contents Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment ................................................. 1 Section A.1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................... 2 A.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 Section A.2 Population Characteristics ................................................................................... 2 A.2.1 Population ............................................................................................................ 2 A.2.2 Age and Gender .................................................................................................. 2 A.2.3 Employment ......................................................................................................... 3 Section A.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................... 5 A.3.1 Household Size .................................................................................................... 5 A.3.2 Overcrowding ....................................................................................................... 5 A.3.3 Special Housing Needs ........................................................................................ 6 Section A.4 Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................................................... 13 A.4.1 Housing Type and Vacancy ............................................................................... 14 A.4.2 Housing Tenure ................................................................................................. 15 A.4.3 Housing Constructed, Demolished or Converted within the Coastal Zone .......... 16 A.4.4 Housing Age and Condition ............................................................................... 17 Section A.5 Housing Costs and Affordability ......................................................................... 18 A.5.1 Housing Affordability Criteria .............................................................................. 18 A.5.2 Ownership Costs................................................................................................ 19 A.5.3 Rental Costs ...................................................................................................... 20 A.5.4 Overpayment ..................................................................................................... 21 A.5.5 At-Risk Housing Assessment ............................................................................. 22 A-2 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment Section A.1 Introduction and Summary A.1.1 Introduction Meeting the various housing needs of residents is an important goal for Seal Beach. The first step to achieving this goal is understanding the housing needs in the community. This chapter explores the various demographic and housing characteristics in the City to help guide the development of policies and programs to address those needs. The Housing Needs Assessment utilizes recent data from the U.S. Census2F, California Department of Finance (DOF), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other relevant sources. Supplemental data was obtained through field surveys. Section A.2 Population Characteristics A.2.1 Population Seal Beach had an estimated population of 24,992 in 2020, including 239 living in group quarters according to the California Department of Finance. During the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 Seal Beach had an annual growth rate of 0.2% compared to 0.7% for the region as a whole (see Table A-1). Table A -1: Population Trends, 2000 -2020, Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region A.2.2 Age and Gender Housing needs are influenced by the age characteristics of the population. Different age groups require different accommodations based on lifestyle, family type, income level, and housing preference. Table A-2 shows the city’s estimated population by age group and gender. The share of the population under 18 years of age is about 13%, which is lower than the regional share of Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-3 23%. Seal Beach's seniors (65 and above) make up 39% of the population, which is higher than the regional share of 13%. Table A-2: Age Distribution by Gender , Seal Beach A.2.3 Employment Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs available in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and size of housing residents can afford. Current Employment Seal Beach has 10,005 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. The chart below provides detailed employment information. The most prevalent industry is Education & Social Services with 2,671 employees (26.7% of total) and the second most prevalent industry is Professional Services with 1,452 employees (14.5% of total) (0). Table A -3: Employment by Industry , Seal Beach A-4 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment The most prevalent occupational category in Seal Beach is Management, in which 5,440 (54.4% of total) employees work. The second-most prevalent type of work is in Sales, which employs 2,535 (25.3% of total) in Seal Beach (0). Table A -4: Employment by Occupation , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-5 Section A.3 Household Characteristics A.3.1 Household Size Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing needed in a city. The Census defines a “household” as all persons occupying a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons sharing a single unit. Persons in group quarters such as dormitories, military barracks, prisons, retirement or convalescent homes, or other group living situations are included in population totals but are not considered households. 0 illustrates the range of household sizes in Seal Beach for owners, renters, and overall. The most commonly occurring household size is of one person (45.1%) and the second-most commonly occurring household is of two people (35.4%). Seal Beach has a higher share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (45.1% vs. 23.4%) and a lower share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall (0.1% vs. 3.1%). Table A-5: Household Size, Seal Beach A.3.2 Overcrowding Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, with severe overcrowding when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Table A-6 summarizes overcrowding for the City of Seal Beach compared to SCAG region as a whole. (Note: Severely overcrowded units are a subset of overcrowded units.) A-6 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment Table A-6: Overcrowding , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region The incidence of overcrowding is very low in Seal Beach compared to regional averages. The relatively high cost of housing in Seal Beach and throughout the region is considered to be the primary cause of overcrowding. Several programs in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) designed to address housing affordability will also help to alleviate overcrowding. These programs include 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites), 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone), 1c (Promote Available Incentives), 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units), 2b (Density Bonus Incentives and Information), 3a (Housing Choice Vouchers), and others. A.3.3 Special Housing Needs Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances. Such circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. As a result, some Seal Beach residents may experience a higher prevalence of overpayment, overcrowding, or other housing problems. State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), the elderly, large households, female-headed households with children, homeless people, and farm workers. Many households within these special needs groups also fall within the extremely-low-income category. This section contains a discussion of the housing needs facing each of these groups. Persons with Disabilities The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disabled person as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Disabled persons may have special housing needs as a result of their disability. Problems may include low income, high Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-7 health care costs, dependency on supportive services, or a need for special building accommodations such as access ramps or elevators. 0 A-7 and 0 show recent disability data for Seal Beach residents. The most common type of disability for all age groups as well as for seniors was ambulatory. Housing opportunities for those with disabilities can be improved through housing assistance programs and universal design features such as widened doorways, ramps, lowered countertops, single-level units and ground floor units. The City currently offers an assistance program for qualified Leisure World residents to upgrade bathroom facilities for mobility (Program 4c). Table A -7: Disabilities by Type, Seal Beach Table A-8: Disabilities for Seniors by Type, Seal Beach A-8 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment As seen in 0, nearly half of Seal Beach residents who reported a disability were employed. Table A -9: Disabilities by Employment Status , Seal Beach Developmental Disabilities As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that: • Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; • Is manifested before the individual attains age 22; • Is likely to continue indefinitely; • Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency; • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. The Census does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-9 The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) is one of 21 regional centers in the State of California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The RCOC is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. DDS data regarding developmental disabilities for Seal Beach residents are shown in 0. Table A -10: Developmental Disabilities for Seal Beach Residents CA DDS consumer count by CA ZIP, age group and residence type for the end of June 2019. Data available in 161/197 SCAG jurisdictions. Any resident of Orange County who has a developmental disability that originated before age 18 is eligible for services. Services are offered to people with developmental disabilities based on Individual Program Plans and may include: Adult day programs; advocacy; assessment/consultation; behavior management programs; diagnosis and evaluation; independent living services; infant development programs; information and referrals; mobility training; prenatal diagnosis; residential care; respite care; physical and occupational therapy; transportation; consumer, family vendor training; and vocational training. RCOC also coordinates the State-mandated Early Start program, which provides services for children under age three who have or are at substantial risk of having a developmental disability. The mission of the Dayle McIntosh Center is to advance the empowerment, equality, integration and full participation of people with disabilities in the community. The Center is not a residential program, but instead promotes the full integration of disabled persons into the community. Dayle McIntosh Center is a consumer-driven organization serving all disabilities. Its staff and board are composed of over 50% of people with disabilities. Its two offices service over 500,000 people in Orange County and surrounding areas with disabilities. A-10 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment In addition, City housing programs that respond to the needs of this population include 1d (Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Transitional/Supportive Housing), 2b (Affordable Housing Resources), and 3a (Section 8 Rental Assistance). Elderly Seal Beach seniors age 65+ make up about 39% of the city’s population, which is significantly higher than the regional share of 13%. (0235H). The unusually high number of senior households in Seal Beach is in large part attributable to the presence of the Leisure World community. Recent Census data estimated that of Seal Beach's 7,250 senior households, 31% earn less than 30% of the surrounding area income, (compared to 24% in the SCAG region), and 53% earn less than 50% of the surrounding area income (compared to 31% in the SCAG region). Many elderly persons are dependent on fixed incomes and/or have a disability. Elderly homeowners may be physically unable to maintain their homes or cope with living alone. The housing needs of this group can be addressed through smaller units, accessory dwelling units on lots with existing homes, shared living arrangements, congregate housing, and housing assistance programs. Table A -11: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure, Seal Beach The following programs described in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) help to address the housing needs of the elderly: 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites), 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone, 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units), 2a (Density Bonus), 2b (Density Bonus Incentives and Information), 3a (Housing Choice Voucher), 4c (Provide Assistance to Lower Income Households), 4d (Provide Fee Waivers for Reasonable Accommodation Applications) and 5b (Housing Information and Referral). Large Households Household size is an indicator of need for large units. Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Recent Census data estimated that the most commonly occurring household size in Seal Beach is one person (45.1%) compared to about 23% for the region as a Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-11 whole. Large households with 5+ persons represent only about 2% of Seal Beach households. This distribution indicates that the need for large units with three or more bedrooms in Seal Beach is significantly less than for smaller units. While large households are far less prevalent in Seal Beach than in some other cities, the following programs described in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) help to address these needs: 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites), 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone), 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units), 2a (Density Bonus), 2b (Affordable Housing Resources), 3a (Section 8 Rental Assistance), and 5b (Housing Information and Referral). Female-Headed Households Recent Census Bureau estimates (0A-12) reported that about 6% of Seal Beach households are female-headed (compared to 14% in the SCAG region), 2% are female-headed and with children (compared to 7% in the SCAG region), and none were female-headed and with children under 6 (compared to 1% in the SCAG region). Table A-12: Female Headed Household s, Seal Beach According to recent Census estimates, about 2% of all Seal Beach households are experiencing poverty, compared to 8% for the SCAG region as a whole (0A-13). Poverty thresholds, as defined by the ACS, vary by household type. A-12 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment Table A -13: Female Headed Household s by Poverty Status , Seal Beach The following programs described in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) help to address the housing needs of female-headed households: 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites), 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone), 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units), 2a (Density Bonus), 2b (Density Bonus Incentives and Information), 3a (Housing Choice Voucher), and 5b (Housing Information and Referral). Farm Workers Farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary income is from seasonal agricultural work. Historically, Orange County’s economy was linked to agriculture. While there are still active farming areas on the Irvine Ranch and in some other cities, shifts in the local economy to production and service-oriented sectors have significantly curtailed agricultural production within the county. Today, Orange County is a mostly developed urban/suburban region with a strong local economy. According to recent Census employment data there are no farmworkers living in Seal Beach. Homeless Persons Throughout the country, homelessness is a serious problem. Factors contributing to homelessness include: changes in federal funding and policies on service provision to those experiencing mental health issues; the general lack of housing solutions, particularly transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing; insufficient housing affordable to lower-income persons; an increasing number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level; ongoing substance abuse challenges; and significant limitations in access to health care, including mental health care. The most recent County of Orange “Point-in-Time” survey of the homeless population for which data is available was conducted in January 2019. That survey estimated that there were approximately 6,860 homeless persons in Orange County, of which 2,899 were sheltered and Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-13 3,961 were unsheltered 1 . Of those, 8 unsheltered persons and no sheltered persons were reported in Seal Beach. The city is located in the Central Service Planning Area, or SPA, with eight other cities located in central Orange County. There are three SPAs in Orange County, utilizing the premise that addressing homelessness is best approached on a regional basis. Shared resources in the Central SPA include the County’s Yale emergency shelter in Santa Ana, as well as a number of non-profits that provide homeless services within the area, including Human Options, Illumination Foundation, and Interval House. Interval House operates three stages of housing for victims of domestic violence in nearby Long Beach. Huntington Beach also operates an emergency shelter. In addition, Seal Beach staff is actively partnered with the County of Orange to create a more innovative approach to addressing mental health and emergency housing needs through additional non-profit and regional partners with the hope of providing additional resources in the coming months. State law requires that jurisdictions quantify the need for emergency shelter and determine whether existing facilities are adequate to serve the need. An emergency shelter is defined as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” If adequate existing facilities are not available, the law requires jurisdictions to identify areas where new facilities are permitted “by-right” (i.e., without requiring discretionary approval such as a use permit). A jurisdiction could also satisfy its shelter needs through a multi-jurisdictional agreement with up to two adjacent communities to develop at least one year-round shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period. As noted in Appendix C the City allows emergency shelters in compliance with SB 2 (2007). Section A.4 Housing Stock Characteristics This section presents an evaluation of the characteristics of the community’s housing stock and helps in identifying and prioritizing needs. The factors evaluated include the number and type of housing units, recent growth trends, age and condition, tenure, vacancy, housing costs, affordability, and assisted affordable units at-risk of loss due to conversion to market-rate. A housing unit is defined as a house, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms, occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. 1 County of Orange, 2019 Point in Time Final Report, July 30, 2019 (http://ochmis.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/2019-PIT-FINAL-REPORT-7.30.2019.pdf) A-14 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment A.4.1 Housing Type and Vacancy 04 provides information on the housing stock in Seal Beach. The most prevalent housing type in Seal Beach is multifamily, 5+ units with 7,012 units. The share of all single-family units in Seal Beach is 43%, which is lower than the 62% share in the SCAG region. The average household size (as expressed by the population to housing unit ratio) is 1.84. Both housing type and average household size are influenced by the Leisure World community, which has a high proportion of multi-family units and low average household size. Table A -14: Housing by Type , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region 0A-14 shows the types of vacant units in Seal Beach compared to the SCAG region. Over half of vacant units in Seal Beach were classified as “seasonal” indicating these units are likely to be second homes. Table A -14: Vacant Units by Type , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-15 A.4.2 Housing Tenure Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) is an important indicator of the housing market. Communities need an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale in order to accommodate a range of households with varying income, family size and composition, and lifestyle. 0 shows that over three-quarters of housing units in Seal Beach are owner-occupied compared to 53% for the region as a whole. Younger Seal Beach residents are more likely to be renters while those over age 45 are predominantly homeowners (06). Table A -15: Household Tenure , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region Table A -16: Household Tenure by Age, Seal Beach A-16 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment A.4.3 Housing Constructed, Demolished or Converted within the Coastal Zone California Government Code §65588(d) requires that the Housing Element update take into account any low- or moderate-income housing provided or required in the Coastal Zone pursuant to Section 65590 (the Mello Act2). State law requires that jurisdictions monitor the following: • The number of new housing units approved for construction within the Coastal Zone (after January 1, 1982); • The number of low- or moderate-income units required to be provided in new developments either within the Coastal Zone or within three miles of the Coastal Zone; • The number of existing housing units in properties with three or more units occupied by low- or moderate-income households that have been authorized for demolition or conversion since January 1, 1982; and • The number of low- or moderate-income replacement units required within the Coastal Zone or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. 0A-17 provides these statistics for the Coastal Zone through 2021. Table A-17: Coastal Zone Housing Units , Seal Beach Category Units Number of new units approved for construction in the Coastal Zone 1982 - 2021: 129 Number of new units for low- and moderate-income households required to be provided either within the coastal zone or within three miles of it: 0 Number of units occupied by low- and moderate-income households and authorized to be demolished or converted: 13 Number of units for low- and moderate-income households required either within the coastal zone or within three miles of it in order to replace those demolished or converted: 7 Source: City of Seal Beach, 2021 In order to receive a demolition or a conversion permit, the request must comply with the Mello Act. The City examines any Coastal Zone development that entails the demolition or conversion of residential units that are not categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A property that is determined to be a public nuisance or is an owner -occupied, single- family dwelling, is not examined in accordance with the Mello Act. All other types of projects are 2 The Mello Act in part requires replacement of affordable units demolished or converted within the coastal zone. Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-17 evaluated. Program 1f (Replacement Housing) in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) responds to the requirements of State law on this issue. A.4.4 Housing Age and Condition Housing age is often an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built prior to 1978 before stringent limits on the amount of lead in paint were imposed may have interior or exterior building components coated with lead-based paint. Housing units built before 1970 are the most likely to need rehabilitation and to have lead-based paint in deteriorated condition. Lead-based paint becomes hazardous to children under age six and to pregnant women when it peels off walls or is pulverized by windows and doors opening and closing. 0A-18 shows the age distribution of the housing stock in Seal Beach compared to the region as a whole. This table shows that about three-quarters of all housing units in Seal Beach were constructed prior to 1970. Even though the majority of homes are more than 50 years old, housing conditions are generally good to excellent, and very few homes are in need of any significant repair, based on staff observations. The City’s Code Enforcement activities focus on maintaining a high quality of life for residents and visitors. Most enforcement activities are complaint-driven, although ongoing monitoring occurs in the Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park. It is estimated that approximately 10 mobile homes in the park are in need of some form of rehabilitation. A windshield survey conducted by City staff in late 2022 identified 44 dwelling units in need of various levels of maintenance, from chipped paint to substandard roofs. Program 4b (Housing Conditions Monitoring) is intended to address these needs. Table A -18: Age of Housing Stock , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region A-18 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment Section A.5 Housing Costs and Affordability A.5.1 Housing Affordability Criteria State law establishes five income categories for purposes of housing programs based on the area (i.e., county) median income (“AMI”): extremely low (30% or less of AMI), very low (31 -50% of AMI), low (51-80% of AMI), moderate (81-120% of AMI) and above moderate (over 120% of AMI). Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and housing expenses. Each year the California Department of Housing and Community Development publishes income guidelines for these income categories. Housing is generally considered “affordable” if the monthly payment is no more than 30% of a household’s gross income. In some areas (such as Orange County), these income limits may be increased to adjust for high housing costs. 0 shows affordable rent levels and estimated affordable purchase prices for housing in Orange County by income category as of 2021. Based on State-adopted standards, the maximum affordable monthly rent (including utilities) for a 4-person extremely-low-income households is $1,009, while the maximum affordable rent for very-low-income households is $1,671. The maximum affordable rent for low-income households is $2,689, while the maximum for moderate- income households is $3,201. These figures are adjusted for smaller or larger households. Affordable purchase prices are more difficult to determine due to variations in mortgage interest rates and qualifying procedures, down payments, special tax assessments, homeowner association fees, property insurance rates, etc. With this caveat, the affordable home purchase prices by income category shown in 0 have been estimated based on typical conditions. Affordable purchase prices have only been estimated for the moderate and above-moderate level because affordable for-sale housing in high-cost areas is generally not feasible at the lower income levels. Table A -19: Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs, 20 21, Orange County Income Category Maximum Income Affordable Rent Affordable Price (est.) Extremely Low $40,350 $1,009 * Very Low $67,250 $1,681 * Low $107,550 $2,689 * Moderate $128,050 $3,201 $500,000 Above moderate Over $128,050 Over $3,201 Over $500,000 Assumptions: Based on a family of 4 and 2021 State income limits; 30% of gross income for rent or principal, interest, taxes & insurance; 5% down payment, 4% interest, 1.25% taxes & insurance, $350 HOA dues Notes: *For-sale affordable housing is typically at the moderate-income level Source: Cal. HCD; JHD Planning LLC Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-19 A.5.2 Ownership Costs Between 2000 and 2018, median home sales prices in Seal Beach increased 151% while prices in the SCAG region increased 151%. Median home sales prices in Seal Beach in 2018 were $952,000, representing the highest prices as of that date. Prices in Seal Beach have ranged from a low of 141.8% of the SCAG region median in 2007 and a high of 232.7% in 2009 (0). Table A -20: Median Home Sales Prices for Existing Homes , 2000-2018, Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region As seen in 0, the most common monthly mortgage cost for Seal Beach homeowners is over $4,000 as compared to $2,000 to $3,000 for the region as a whole. Table A -21: Monthly Owner Costs for Mortgage Holders , Seal Beach vs. SCAG Region A-20 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment A.5.3 Rental Costs As in most beach communities in Southern California, rents are relatively high compared to regional averages. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median rent in Seal Beach is approximately $1,907/month. Across Seal Beach's 2,996 renter households, 1,262 (42%) spend 30% or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 55% in the SCAG region. Additionally, 561 renter households in Seal Beach (19%) spend 50% or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 29% in the SCAG region (0233H). As illustrated in 0, households with the lowest incomes typically spend the highest proportion of their incomes on rent. Table A -22: Percentage of Income Spent on Rent , Seal Beach Table A -23: Rental Cost by Income Category , Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment City of Seal Beach | A-21 A.5.4 Overpayment According to State housing policy, overpaying occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of gross household income. Table A-24 displays recent estimates for overpayment by tenure and income category for Seal Beach households. This table shows that households in the lower income categories are more likely to overpay for housing. Although homeowners enjoy income and property tax deductions and other benefits that help to compensate for high housing costs, lower-income homeowners may need to defer maintenance or repairs due to limited funds, which can lead to deterioration. For lower-income renters, severe cost burden can require families to double up resulting in overcrowding and related problems. Table A -24: Overpayment by Income Category , Seal Beach The relatively high cost of housing in Seal Beach and throughout the region is the primary cause of overpayment. Several programs in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4) designed to address housing affordability will also help to address this issue. These programs include 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites), 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone), 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units), 2b (Affordable Housing Resources), 3a (Housing Choice Vouchers), and others. A-22 | City of Seal Beach Housing Needs Assessment Extremely-Low-Income Households State law requires quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely-low-income (ELI) households. Extremely-low-income is defined as households with income less than 30% of area median income. Housing the extremely-low-income population is especially challenging. HUD's CHAS dataset provides information on ELI households in Seal Beach (0). The race/ethnicity with the highest share of ELI households in Seal Beach is Asian and other, non-Hispanic (28.4% compared to 21.4% of total population). In the SCAG region, the highest share of ELI households is Black, non-Hispanic (27.1% compared to 17.7% of total households). Table A -25: Extremely -Low-Income Households , Seal Beach A.5.5 At-Risk Housing Assessment In 2000, the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency helped to secure financing to allow conversion of the Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park to affordable tenant ownership. The Agency secured a $6.75 million low-interest loan and a $985,000 bridge loan for the project. All financial obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency have since been repaid. Under dissolution, the County of Orange became the Housing Successor, and manages the covenants for this development. The park includes 100 units (25 very-low- and 75 low-income). None of these units are at risk during the current period. One other affordable housing project – Country Villa Seal Beach – is located in the city. According to the California Housing Partnership, this 90-unit project is assisted through Sections 232 and 223(f). Covenants are not scheduled to expire until 2035 and therefore the project is not at risk during this planning period. Country Villa is a group quarters living arrangement. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-1 Appendix B: Sites Inventory & Methodology Contents Appendix B: Sites Inventory & Methodology ............................................. 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Section B.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 B.1.1 Overview and Purpose ......................................................................................... 2 B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ..................................................................... 2 B.1.3 Data ..................................................................................................................... 3 Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential ........................................................... 3 B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units ..................................................................................... 3 B.2.2 Current Projects Pending Approval ...................................................................... 4 B.2.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 5 B.2.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 8 B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites ............................................................................. 10 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA ............................................... 17 B.3.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 17 B.3.2 Site Profiles ........................................................................................................ 18 B.3.3 Housing Sites Map ............................................................................................. 28 B.3.4 Housing Sites Tables ......................................................................................... 29 B-2 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Section B.1 Introduction B.1.1 Overview and Purpose According to California Government Code §65580-65589, the housing element must include an inventory of adequate sites that are zoned and available within the planning period to meet the jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels. The sites inventory, in addition to projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and in process development projects, assists in determining if the jurisdiction has enough developable land to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), given its current regulatory framework and market conditions. This Appendix details the sites inventory and supporting analysis methodology and assumptions. B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Jurisdictions must provide sufficient land to accommodate enough housing for all economic segments of the community. Compliance is determined by the jurisdiction’s ability to provide adequate development capacity through appropriate development regulations and land use policies. The number of new units that must be accommodated is established through each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period. This share for each jurisdiction is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), a regional planning agency, is responsible for distributing the RHNA to each jurisdiction within its six-county region (including the County of Orange).1 The RHNA is distributed by income category. For the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, Seal Beach is allocated a RHNA of 1,243 units as follows: • Very Low Income (less than 50 percent of AMI): 258 units (21 percent) • Low Income (50 to 80 percent of AMI): 201 units (16 percent) • Moderate Income (80 to 120 percent of AMI): 239 units (19 percent) • Above Moderate Income (greater than 120 percent of AMI): 545 units (44 percent) For this Housing Element planning period, October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029, the City must ensure the availability of adequate residential sites to accommodate these units. This Appendix provides an overview of the methodology used to evaluate the adequacy of sites within 1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) covers a six-county region, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-3 Seal Beach and identifies such sites for future residential development to fulfill the City’s share of regional housing needs. B.1.3 Data The sites inventory analysis used data provided by the City, such as parcel data and building permit/entitlement information. The following is an overview of the data used: • City and County-level parcel data, including General Plan land use designations, zoning information, and infrastructure availability • ADU information • Projects in the entitlement phase • Prior housing element site inventories • Annual Progress Reports to HCD during the 5th Cycle • Zoning Code maximum density standards • Google Earth aerial imagery Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units State laws in effect since January 1, 2018, have eased the development standards and streamlined the approval process for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Table B-1 shows the number of building permits issued for ADUs in Seal Beach from 2019 through 2023. Table B-1: Permitted ADUs – Building Permits Issued Year Permitted ADUs 2019 1 2020 2 2021 0 2022 0 2023 3 Total 6 Annual Average 1.2 Source: HCD B-4 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Over a 5-year period from 2019 through 2023, the City of Seal Beach issued an average of 1.2 ADU building permits per year. The City is estimating 1.2 ADUs to be produced each year, or 7.2 ADUs over the next six years (rounded to 7 ADUs), given recent historical trends and the length of the planning period (from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029). The Housing Element incorporates feasible recommendations from this report to continue to incentivize ADU production to help meet the City’s RHNA (see Section 4 and below). Programs in the Housing Element to further incentivize ADU production include: • Program 1h: Accessory Dwelling Units • Program 1i: Accessory Dwelling Units Amnesty Program • Program 1j: Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Program SCAG conducted a regional ADU affordability analysis to provide local governments in the region with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign projected ADUs to income categories. The ADU affordability assumptions identified in the SCAG analysis were applied to ADUs projected over the planning period are listed in Table B-2. Table B-2: Affordability per SCAG ADU Survey Income Level Percent ADU Projections Extremely Low 15% 1 Very Low 10% 1 Low 43% 3 Moderate 30% 2 Above Moderate 2% 1 Total 7 Source: SCAG, 2020 B.2.2 Current Projects Pending Approval Because the RHNA projection period for the 2021-2029 Housing Element begins on June 30, 2021, housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA. Error! Reference source not found. lists the project that meet those criteria and can be credited toward the 6th Cycle RHNA. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-5 Table B-3: Current Projects Pending Approval APN Project Name Status Units by Income Level Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Net New1 130-012-55 Old Ranch Country Club2 Submitted Application 167 167 Total 167 167 1 No projects are located on parcels with existing residential units where the existing residential units will be demolished. 2 If approved, Old Ranch Country Club will include 116 family units and 51 senior units. Source: City of Seal Beach Approximately 4 acres of the 155-acre Old Ranch Country Club are proposed for housing. Existing uses at the Old Ranch Country Club include a clubhouse, golf course, and supporting amenities, most of which will remain. This housing development application includes specific plan and development agreement components, and an Environmental Impact Report is being prepared for this project. B.2.3 Assumptions Density and Realistic Capacity Assumptions The City’s sites inventory relies primarily on the rezoning of existing commercial properties to a new zone that allows for high density residential, mixed-use developments under Program 1.b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone). This new MC/RHD zone will allow residential development with a maximum density of up to 46 dwelling units per acre, and will require a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Sites in the City’s sites inventory that are being rezoned MC/RHD are conservatively assumed to develop at a capacity of 80 percent of maximum density (80 percent of 46 dwelling units per acre, or almost 37 dwelling units per acre), to account for inefficacies that can arise from parcel shape and orientation during the development process; there is no likelihood for 100 percent nonresidential (commercial) projects since 100 percent nonresidential will not be allowed in the MC/RHD zone, consistent with the zone’s intent to produce additional housing.2 In terms of land use controls, through Program 1.b the City will 2 The declining trend of brick-and-mortar retail/commercial coupled with COVID-19 pandemic impacts (e.g., the increasing prevalence of working from home, decreases in demand for commercial real estate, etc.) and continued market demand for housing demonstrates that commercial uses as part of mixed-use developments will not impede residential development. B-6 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology create development standards in the MC/RHD zone that are conducive to achieving the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre.3 The City’s conservative realistic capacity assumption for sites to be rezoned MC/RHD (80 percent of the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre) is lower than the minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre because that minimum density standard has not yet been adopted. However, once the minimum density standard of 40 dwelling units per acre is adopted for the MC/RHD zoning district, the City will anticipate additional units than those projected in its sites inventory (however, this capacity is not counted in the sites inventory towards the City’s RHNA). The City considers this conservative approach to give it an additional built-in “buffer” for the purposes of meeting its RHNA obligations during the 6th cycle and is committed to adopting minimum and maximum densities as described in this Housing Element. Furthermore, realistic capacity assumptions have been significantly reduced to account for the anticipated development footprint 4 . All of the sites to be rezoned MC/RHD anticipate that residential development will only occur on existing surface parking lots. Parcels with structures, or portions of structures have not been included as a part of these sites. Capacity at these sites is anticipated to be infill and no removal of existing commercial improvements are anticipated or included in the calculation of realistic capacity. See Sections B.2.5, B.3.2, and B.3.4 for more information. As described in Section 3.2 below, the following sites5 will be rezoned MC/RHD under Program 1b: • Site 4: Accurate Storage • Site 5: The Shops at Rossmoor • Site 6: Old Ranch Town Center 3 Furthermore, because the MC/RHD zone will be created through Program 1.b (and does not currently exist), it is not possible to analyze historic trends of 100 percent nonresidential use occurring on sites within this zone; however, the new MC/RHD zone will not allow 100 percent nonresidential use. All other sites in the sites inventory are identified at parcels zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD), Residential High-Density, Planned Development Overlay District (RHD-PD), and Residential High-Density-33 (RHD-33). Of these, only the LC/RMD allows 100 percent nonresidential (i.e., commercial) uses. The City does not have a track record of 100 percent nonresidential uses developing in the LC/RMD district in the last 5 years, indicating that 100 percent nonresidential uses will not impede residential development in this zone. For reference, the only site in the LC/RMD zone is 1780 Pacific Coast Highway which has an assumed capacity of 4 moderate-income units (discounted from a maximum capacity of 5 units). 4 See Tables B-6 and B-7 for assumed capacity projections as a percentage of the maximum capacity that would be allowed. 5 These commercial sites are in fact each made up of several individual parcels whose realistic capacity is calculated on a parcel-by-parcel basis. None of the sites in the inventory rely on consolidation for the purposes of calculating assumed capacity or income levels. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-7 • Site 7: Seal Beach Plaza • Site 8: Seal Beach Center One other site, Site 9, located at 99 Marina Drive, will be rezoned under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) to the City’s existing High Density Residential-33 zoning district, which allows a maximum density of 33 dwelling units per acre. The realistic capacity assumed at 99 Marina Drive was discounted to 70 percent of maximum density (i.e., 70 percent of 33 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 23 dwelling units per acre) to account for land use controls, although again, the City anticipates that the maximum allowable density of 33 dwelling units per acre will be achievable at this site. Lastly, the City’s sites inventory includes two sites that do not necessitate rezoning for the production of housing, 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (Site 1) and the Leisure World RV parking lot (Site 2), which are also projected to accommodate an assumed capacity of 70 percent of maximum density to account for land use controls and the possibility of 100 nonresidential development. 1780 Pacific Coast Highway is zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which allows a maximum density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, and the Leisure World RV lot is zoned Residential High Density/Planned Development, and has a maximum density of 32.2 dwelling units per acre. See Sections B.3.2 and B.3.4 for additional information regarding the realistic capacities assumed for the sites inventory. Affordability Assumptions State law6 establishes a “default density” of 30 units per acre that is suitable for lower-income housing in communities with a population over 25,000, including Seal Beach. All lower-income sites in the sites inventory are consistent with this general affordability assumption7. However, State law provides that sites smaller than ½ acre, or larger than 10 acres, are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. All sites smaller than ½ acre have been allocated to the moderate or above moderate- income categories. See Sections B.3.2 and B.3.4 for additional information regarding the realistic capacities assumed for the sites inventory. 6 Government Code Sec. 65583.2(c)(3) 7 In some cases, however, even if the maximum allowable density at a particular site is 30 dwelling units per acre or greater, the City has identified particular sites as affordable to moderate or above moderate income households, as allowed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. No sites with maximum densities under 30 dwelling units per acre have been identified for lower-income units. B-8 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Density Bonus Based on how existing financing applications for low-income housing tax credits, AHSC, and other funding sources are structured, affordable housing developments for lower-income households are most competitive to win funding when the project exceeds a jurisdiction’s base density and/or utilizes a density bonus. In the instance of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, a new construction project must utilize a density bonus to even be eligible. State law has been amended several times to allow density bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. Due to the high cost of land and construction, Seal Beach expects residential developers to take advantage of the density bonus provisions to include affordable units in new residential projects and improve fiscal feasibility of projects - also see Programs 2a (Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process) and 2b (Density Bonus Incentives and Information) for more information on how the City will be facilitating density bonus applications. However, it is important to note that the City is not factoring in the possibility of additional units allowed by a density bonus in its realistic capacity nor affordability assumptions, nor to meet its RHNA obligations, although density bonus projects would of course help provide additional affordable housing. As shown in Table B-4, several housing development projects in the vicinity of Seal Beach have utilized density bonus provisions in recent years. B.2.4 Methodology Housing Site Inventory Seal Beach is nearly built-out with almost no vacant developable land remaining. Therefore, the site inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites. The following pages detail the Housing Opportunity Sites that have potential for additional housing. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes summarized in Table B-6, and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed, summarized in Table B-7. Where units could not be located at sites under present zoning, the City examined nonresidential areas where zoning amendments could facilitate residential development. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. To ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility was determined by a number of different variables, including improvement-to-land value ratio, existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses, and by recent patterns and trends in the region (see table B-4 and Section B.2.5 for additional analysis on comparable patterns and trends). The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data across such variables to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the site inventory and to estimate the number of additional Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-9 units that are likely to be developed. Bearing in mind that most of the developable land within the city consists of established residential uses, most of these areas were eliminated from consideration, as land assembly in a single-family neighborhood was considered infeasible. As discussed in Appendix C Constraints, infrastructure systems such as water, wastewater, drainage and dry utilities are in place, and there are no known limitations that would preclude the anticipated level of development at any candidate site. In some instances, infrastructure may need to be upgraded to provide additional capacity. As part of future Land Use Element amendments and zoning changes to ensure availability of adequate sites (Program 1a), CEQA analysis will be conducted to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with any potential future infrastructure projects. Recent real estate development trends in coastal Orange and Los Angeles counties demonstrate the increasing market feasibility of multi-family and mixed-use redevelopment. In addition, research conducted by the University of California, Berkeley 8 to identify potential infill development opportunities in California concluded that the ratio of improvement value to land value (I/L ratio) serves as an indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment. That study utilized an I/L ratio of less than 1.0 for commercial and multi-family residential properties, and the authors of that study noted that this methodology “…has a strong theoretical and empirical basis: urban parcels for which improvement values are less than land values are widely considered to be economically underutilized. Indeed, many, if not most, market-rate infill housing projects are currently built on refill sites.” The candidate sites listed in Table B-6 and B-7 were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, as described in Appendix E, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) states that infill projects must comply with all applicable specific policies and development standards. As all opportunity sites comply with height restrictions, noise and safety standards, and are not within identified Accident Potential Zones (APZs) or Clear Zones (CZs), they all qualify as suitable sites. In accordance with the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21678, upon the adoption of an overrule action, the Housing Element shall not be subject to further Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review, unless the ALUC and the City both agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the ALUC. Additionally, pursuant to PUC Sections 21670 and 21676, serving as the final review authority, the City Council may, following a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, provided 8 University of California, Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development, The Future of Infill Housing in California: Opportunities, Potential, Feasibility and Demand, 2005 B-10 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology that specific findings are made that a project is consistent with the objectives of PUC Section 21670 regarding the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimizes the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The AELUP also sets forth noise, safety, and land use compatibility standards with the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. Concerning noise standards, AELUP Section 2.1.1 establishes the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards. One opportunity site, the Old Ranch Town Center, lies partially within the 60 dB CNEL contour for the JFTB Los Alamitos. No sites are identified within the 65 dB CNEL. The Old Ranch Country Club site was formerly within the 60 dB CNEL contour for the JFTB Los Alamitos, but has been reclassified as a pipeline site. AELUP Section 3.2.4 requires residential uses to be developed with advanced insulation systems to limit interior sound to no more than 45 dB. The City’s General Plan Noise Element also currently requires interior sound attenuation to 45 dB. Additionally, in compliance with AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) safety standards, no opportunity sites are located within CZs. Furthermore, concerning land use compatibility adjacent to JTFB Los Alamitos and consistency with the AELUP, any infill projects must comply with all applicable specific policies. Specifically, projects with heights of 200 feet or higher above ground level fall within the AELUP due to their potential adverse aeronautical effect. None of the housing opportunity sites violate the AELUP height restrictions, are consistent with the noise and safety policies, and are not situated within any identified APZs or CZs. Based on these findings, on August 19, 2022, after conducting a public hearing, the City Council determined by resolution that the Housing Element is consistent with the noise, safety, and height standards, as well as the purposes and intent of the AELUP. Consequently, the Council overruled the ALUC’s determination that the Housing Element is inconsistent with the AELUP. As determined by the City Council then, all of the housing sites are consistent with the AELUP. B.2.5 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites Sites for Housing Development Due to a lack of vacant land, the majority of the Seal Beach opportunity sites are in use to some degree. As will be described in more detail however, the sites are underutilized, and the opportunities to intensify and/or diversify the uses are feasible and make sense within the greater market area. While Seal Beach itself has experienced intensifications of site use, complete site redevelopment has been minimal. Nevertheless, several regional examples of redevelopment are readily available and Seal Beach is subject to the same market forces that bring such projects to fruition. Some examples of new housing developments in the region, including neighboring cities such as Long Beach and other cities in Orange County, follow in Table B-4. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-11 Table B-4: Comparable Residential/Mixed-Use Redevelopment Projects in Neighboring Long Beach and Orange County Cities Project Address Site Size (ac) City Previous / Existing Use Built Height Final Unit Count Number of Affordable Units By-Right Density (du/ac) Density Bonus? Status Built or Propos ed Density (du/ac) % of Max Density Newport Village Mixed-Use 2000 – 2244 and 2001- 2241 West Coast Highway 9.4 Newport Beach Retail, marine related commercial, boat rental, service uses, office, and surface parking lots 3 stories 198 9 26.71 Yes EIR Scoping Meeting October 2023 21.06 79% Onni Marina Shores 6500 Pacific Coast Highway 6.17 Long Beach Multi-tenant strip mall (fast casual food, grocery store, gym, chiropractor, dry cleaners, restaurants, grocery store, pet store, salon) and surface parking 5 stories 600 0 Calculated by Southeast Area Specific Plan Trip Allocation for Mixed-Use Designations No Approved by Planning Commission July 2023 97.24 N/A 6700 PCH 6700 Pacific Coast Highway 2.61 Long Beach Office building (bank, finance offices) with underground and surface parking 6 stories 281 13 Calculated by Southeast Area Specific Plan Trip Allocation for Mixed-Use Designations Yes Approved by Planning Commission April 2023 107.66 N/A 6615 PCH 6615 E Pacific Coast Highway 3.75 Long Beach Office building (chiropractor’s office, accounting office, real estate offices, etc.) and surface parking 6 stories 380 17 Calculated by Southeast Area Specific Plan Trip Allocation for Mixed-Use Designations Yes Approved by City Council September 2023 104.00 N/A Westminster Mall Redevelopm ent 1025 Westminster Mall, Westminster 100 Westminster Shopping mall and surface parking 3 – 10 stories 3,000 300 Calculated by Westminster Mall Specific Plan Trip Budget No Specific Plan adopted December 2022; Development Applications in Process 30 N/A MainPlace Mall Transformati on 2800 North Main Street, Santa Ana 49 Santa Ana Shopping mall and surface parking 10-20 stories 1,900 TBD, consistent with Housing 39 No Specific Plan adopted June 2019; under construction 39 100% B-12 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Table B-4: Comparable Residential/Mixed-Use Redevelopment Projects in Neighboring Long Beach and Orange County Cities Project Address Site Size (ac) City Previous / Existing Use Built Height Final Unit Count Number of Affordable Units By-Right Density (du/ac) Density Bonus? Status Built or Propos ed Density (du/ac) % of Max Density Oppor- tunity Ordinance Long Beach Senior Village 901-941 E Pacific Coast Highway 0.63 Long Beach Car/boat mechanic’s shop, autobody/paint shop, and surface parking 4 stories 68 67 44.68 Yes Built 2023 107.94 242% 26 Point 2 3590 E Pacific Coast Highway 1.14 Long Beach Commercial buildings with offices (salon; real estate, property management, appraisal service offices; insurance offices; dental office) and surface parking 5 stories 77 76 44.68 Yes Built 2024 67.72 152% The Cove 2121 W Williams St 0.87 Long Beach Residential 4 stories 90 89 1,380 total units allowed in the Century Villages at Cabrillo Specific Plan No Built 2023 104 N/A Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-13 The City has several functioning retail centers serving local and regional customers, but adding residential uses to these commercial centers could be financially beneficial. As described in Section B.2.3, the City is developing a mixed-use zone to apply to these sites that will allow high- density residential uses that will include a maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre and minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre (Program 1b). While many of the residential/mixed- use projects described above are developing at densities approaching or in excess of 100 dwelling units per acre, indicating tremendous demand for housing in Seal Beach and its vicinity, two of the projects described above have allowable densities in the range allowed by the new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density zoning district proposed in Program 1b: Heritage Gardens (Long Beach Senior Housing) and the 26 Point 2 project, which have allowable densities of 44.68 dwelling units per acre. Both of these projects have been developed at nonvacant sites. These projects demonstrate that the density range proposed for the new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density is consistent with other allowable densities that are currently producing housing. Development standards and land use controls, including heights, setbacks, parking ratios, etc. will be created as part of Program 2.b that ensure that the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre can be achieved. Furthermore, all of the commercial sites being rezoned to Mixed Commercial/High Density Residential are proposed as infill development on parking lots, and do not require existing commercial uses to cease or discontinue. The sites in the inventory being rezoned to the Mixed Commercial/High Residential zone9 that have existing commercial uses, shopping centers, and large surface parking lots are: • Site 4: Accurate Storage: Indoor and outdoor storage facility with surface parking10 • Site 5: The Shops at Rossmoor: Multi-tenant strip mall with surface parking • Site 6: Old Ranch Town Center: Multi-tenant strip mall with surface parking • Site 7: Seal Beach Plaza: Multi-tenant strip mall with surface parking • Site 8: Seal Beach Center: Multi-tenant strip mall with surface parking The existing uses and parcel sizes for comparable redevelopment projects in Table B-4 correspond to the existing uses in the sites inventory identified above (also see Tables B-6 and 9 The only site in the sites inventory that will be rezoned to a zone other than the Mixed Commercial/High Density Residential zone is 99 Marina, which is a vacant site. 10 In addition to a low Improvement-to-Land Value ratio of 0.54 (see Section B.2.4 for a description of the methodology used for selecting sites and projecting realistic capacity), the property owner has indicated interest in redevelopment of this property for housing. B-14 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology B-7), providing support for the likelihood of redevelopment and demonstrating that the existing uses at these commercial sites in the sites inventory are not impediments to housing redevelopment. For example, Table B-4 identifies that previous/existing uses for comparable redevelopment projects include: • Westminster Mall Redevelopment and Santa Ana Main Place Mall Transformation: Shopping mall, including big box stores, and surface parking • Onni Marina Shores: Multi-tenant strip mall (fast casual food, grocery store, gym, chiropractor, dry cleaners, restaurants, grocery store, pet store, salon) and surface parking • 26 Point 2: Commercial buildings with offices (salon; real estate, property management, appraisal service offices; insurance offices; dental office) and surface parking • 6615 Pacific Coast Highway: Office building (chiropractor’s office, accounting office, real estate offices, etc.) and surface parking • 6700 Pacific Coast Highway: Office building (bank, finance offices) with underground and surface parking • Long Beach Senior Village: Car/boat mechanic’s shop, autobody/paint shop, and surface parking • Newport Village Mixed-Use: Retail, marine related commercial, boat rental, service uses, office, and surface parking Moreover, the project site sizes identified in Table B-4 for comparable redevelopment projects are similar to those in the sites inventory, lending further support to the likelihood of redevelopment. The project sites in Table B-4 range from 0.63 to 9.4 acres11 whereas project sites in the sites inventory range from 0.25 to 11.97 acres.12 In addition, the two sites in the inventory that do not necessitate rezoning, 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (Site 1) and the Leisure World RV parking lot (Site 2) are in zoning districts that allow similar densities to those in the region where housing is being developed. 1780 Pacific Coast Highway is zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which allows a maximum density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, and the Leisure World RV lot is zoned Residential High Density/Planned Development, and has a maximum density of 32.2 dwelling units per acre. 11 Except for the very large mall redevelopment sites in Westminster and Santa Ana, which were included to demonstrate additional redevelopment of commercial sites with large parking lots. 12 See Tables B-6 and B-7, as well as the Site Profiles in Section B.3.2. The infill parking lot area on which the City projects housing capacity for the Shops at Rossmoor is 11.97 acres. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-15 Viable projects in nearby Cypress (Lincoln West Apartments – maximum 30 dwelling units per acre) and Newport Beach (Newport Village Mixed-Use – maximum 26.7 dwelling units per acre) demonstrate that housing is being built in nearby jurisdictions at the densities allowed at these sites that do not require rezoning. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that these sites are of a sufficient size and allow sufficient density to produce the housing assumed in Tables B-6 and B-7. Also see the Site Profiles in Section B.3.2 for more information. Sites for Rezoning and Suitability of Nonvacant Sites Many cities have observed the deterioration of retail centers for a variety of reasons. In Seal Beach, the primary retail centers remain largely viable uses; however, there are few outdated structures and underutilized parcels where uses could be intensified through infill or partial redevelopment. The success of these centers and their overall appearance contribute to the possibility that residential uses could also be successful on these sites. These sites are generally located along Seal Beach Boulevard or Pacific Coast Highway and enjoy good access to transit, services, and amenities. Therefore, the City is proposing to allow these retail sites to be developed with higher density residential uses through a new high density residential mixed-use zoning district (see Program 1.b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone). Given the current operation of the retail centers, the City has assumed that each commercial site in the inventory would be developed with residential infill uses on existing parking lots. Based on land use patterns in the City, parcels with the following characteristics were included in the inventory: • Retail centers with large, paved surface parking lots that provide opportunity for infill development; • Underutilized sites that could wholly or partially redevelop with residential uses. The resultant parcels were reviewed based on an additional set of factors: • General characteristics, such as low existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and COVID- impacted uses, among others; • Expressed interest from property owners or developers; • Applications filed for new residential development. To further encourage and facilitate the development of affordable units for low- and very low- income households, the City will adopt a menu of development incentive opportunities, including: streamlined processing, density bonus incentives, deferred impact fees, and reductions in development and parking standards, as indicated in the Housing Action Plan (Section 4). Funding for potential regulatory and financial incentives will be prioritized to encourage housing for extremely low- and very low-income households. Although rare, developers have occasionally requested to develop at densities below the maximum permitted on a given site. This typically B-16 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology occurs when market demand is inconsistent with development regulations. When this occurs, the City will work cooperatively with the developer to maximize the site's potential consistent with the General Plan and other community objectives. To ensure that adequate sites are available for the development of lower income housing during the 2021-2029 planning period, the City has included Program 1d to track the number of units built on parcels including in the City’s sites inventory and to determine the remaining site capacity by income category. This will ensure the City takes appropriate action if a Housing Opportunity site is developed at a density below what is permitted Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-17 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA B.3.1 Summary Table B-5 summarizes the City’s methods for satisfying its RHNA and outlines the unit capacity of the sites inventory based on density and affordability assumptions provided above in Section B.2.3 Based on ADU projections (Table B-2), current projects pending approval (Table B-3), and available sites (Tables B-6 and B-7), the City has capacity for 1,339 units across all income categories, resulting in an 8 percent, or 96-unit, surplus over the RHNA. Table B-5: Residential Development Potential and RHNA Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA See Very Low 258 201 239 545 1,243 ADUs See Very Low 2 3 2 - 7 Current Projects Pending Approval - - - - 167 167 Remaining RHNA See Very Low 256 198 237 378 1,069 Site Inventory (Baseline Sites)1 See Very Low - 129 - 129 Surplus/(Shortfall) (454)2 (108) (378) (940) Rezone Sites 534 117 385 1,036 Surplus/(Shortfall) with Rezone Sites 80 9 7 96 1. See Tables B-6 and B-7 for the complete inventory 2. For calculation purposes, extremely low, very low-, and low-income totals were grouped. Source: City of Seal Beach, LWC The scenario in Table B-5 relies on zoning amendments, identified in previous sections, to ensure adequate capacity for all income levels. With completion of these amendments (Program 1a and 1b), the City will have adequate capacity in all income categories, as shown in Tables B-6 and B- 7. AB 725 requires that 25 percent of a city’s above-moderate income RHNA and 25 percent of the city’s moderate-income RHNA be met on sites which accommodate four or more units per site. As shown in Tables B-6 and B-7, 100 percent of Seal Beach’s above moderate-income RHNA and moderate income RHNA are expected on sites accommodating 4 or more units. B-18 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology B.3.2 Site Profiles In addition to the overall analysis, discussion and methodology described above, this section provides additional clarification and methodology on how the estimated number of residential units were determined for each site factoring the existing uses. Also see Section B.2.3 for information regarding how realistic capacity assumptions were reduced to take into account the possibility of 100 percent non-residential use13 and other land use controls. Of the 8 site groupings listed in Tables B-6 and B-7 and in the site profiles below, only one is vacant (Site 9, 99 Marina). The discussion below provides a brief explanation on the methodology used to calculate residential potential for each of the sites that are currently developed with various uses. The site profiles below also identify the “reason for selection” (i.e., why a site was included in the inventory). Consistent with the methodology used for identifying sites described in Section B.2.4, sites generally have low improvement-to-land values (I/L ratio<1.0), older existing uses, property owner interest in redevelopment for housing, and are supported by recent patterns and trends in the region (also see Section B.2.5). In addition, each of these sites have characteristics that are similar to other sites that have been redeveloped or developed with housing in neighboring communities (see Table B-4). These factors include the presence of surface parking, lower intensity uses (e.g., storage), or lack of substantial improvements. 13 As stated previously, sites being rezoned to the Mixed Commercial/High Density Residential zone do not allow 100 percent nonresidential use (i.e., must include residential development). See Program 1b for more information. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-19 Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning) Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway, the eastern corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Blvd. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west is single family residential. APN: 199-061-01 Current Use: Retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop Current Zoning Designation: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) Size: 0.25 acres Reason for Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. Due to the age and marginal condition of the structure, taken in combination with the value of the land, this site is an excellent and likely candidate for redevelopment with a new residential or mixed-use project. It is immediately adjacent to housing, with excellent access to goods and services. Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 21.8 units/acre. The site can reasonably accommodate ground floor commercial use and parking with four second-story housing units. Because of its maximum allowable density, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income site inventory. B-20 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning) Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Blvd, Seal Beach Blvd, the I- 405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about one third of a mile from the southwestern corner of the community. APN: 095-691-04 Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage Current Zoning Designation: Residential High Density – Planned Development Size: 5.5 acres Reason for Selection: This is an underutilized site in a community that while not income -restricted, offers very affordable living options, with units selling far below the cost of condominiums elsewhere in the region. For example, a one-bedroom unit may be found for under $300,000 while elsewhere pricing starts in the $500,000 range. According to Table A-11, approximately 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consists of low- to moderate-income households. Additionally, the community is already developed to higher densities, with a few buildings at three stories with parking underneath. Additional units could integrate well into the community and could spread ongoing maintenance and operational costs among a greater number of owners, helping to keep those costs in an affordable range. Furthermore, such development has precedent. The series of three-story buildings earlier referenced, known as Mutual 17, were built in the 1980s, well after the rest of Leisure World was developed, and include 126 2-bedroom, 2-bath condominiums on a little less than five acres. As only one percent of the site is proposed for redevelopment, and adequately sized common areas are present, the existing uses will not impede the anticipated amount of residential development. A development proposal at this site can be approved administratively. No additional zoning revisions are needed. Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 125 moderate-income units can be accommodated on approximately 5.55 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage at an assumed density of 22.7 units to an acre (this site has a maximum density of 32.2 units to an acre). New three-story buildings can accommodate parking on the ground level with units above. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-21 Site 4 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required)14 Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. APN: 095-791-18 Current Use: Self storage facility Current Zoning Designation: High Density Residential (RHD-20) Size: 4.4 acres (1.8 acres assumed to be developed during the planning period) Reason for Selection: Reason for selection: This site was previously selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking, location close to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has good access to employment and transit routes. Due to the high land value and relatively low utilization, there is significant financial incentive for residential development on this property. Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. As described in Table B-7, this site is proposed for rezoning to a maximum density of 46 units per acre that will enhance the financial viability of adding residences to the site. At an assumed capacity of 37 dwelling units per acre15, 14 Previous draft versions of this 2021-2029 Housing Element identified “Site 3 – Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADUs); however, ADUs are not a “site” in the sites inventory, but are accounted for in Section B.2.1. For consistency, the numbering of all other sites remains unchanged from previous drafts, which is why there is no “Site 3” in the sites inventory. 15 These are in fact conservative assumptions regarding assumed capacity, as the site will be rezoned Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) under Program 1.b, which will have a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a maximum 46 dwelling units per acre. B-22 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology development of 1.8 acres could yield 66 above-moderate units, or more if a density bonus is employed. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-23 Site 5 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way APNs: Development only projected at APNs 086- 492-56, 086-492-80, 086-492-87, 086-492- 90, 086-492-92 Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington Current Zoning Designation: General Commercial (CG) Size: 27 acres (12 acres assumed to be developed during the planning period) Reason for Selection: This site was selected due to an abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use. Assumed Development Capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that approximately 12 acres of surface parking could be developed with housing, calculated at 37 units per acre, this would result in 441 units16, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, Table B-7 assumes 276 of units at lower-income, 14 units at moderate-income, and 151 at above- moderate-income. 16 These are in fact conservative assumptions regarding assumed capacity, as the sites in the Rossmoor Shopping Center will be rezoned Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) under Program 1.b, which will have a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a maximum 46 dwelling units per acre. B-24 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Site 6 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. APNs: Development only projected at APNs 130- 861-15, 130-861-16, 130-861-17, 130- 861-18 Current Use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket. Current Zoning Designation: General Commercial (GC) Size: 26 acres (8.3 acres assumed to be developed during the planning period) Reason for Selection: Similar to the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. Currently, the former Bed Bath and Beyond store is vacant. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with on-site residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development. Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed approximately 8.3 acres of the surface parking lot of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses, creating a mixed-use environment at 37 units per acre, for a total of 306 units17. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, as well as density over 30 dwelling units per acre, Table B-7 projects 258 units at lower-income and 48 at moderate-income. Due to its proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, all residential units would be conditioned to meet interior noise level standards of 45 decibels, however, this is not an obstacle to development as this is also the standard in the California Building Code (see Section B.2.4 for more information on Airport Environ Land Use Plan considerations). Housing currently exists to the north and northeast of the site, also adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base. 17 These are in fact conservative assumptions regarding assumed capacity, as the sites in the Old Ranch Town Center will be rezoned Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) under Program 1.b, which will have a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a maximum 46 dwelling units per acre. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-25 Site 7 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Blvd and Westminster Blvd. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. APNs: Development only projected at APNs 095-641-44, 095-641-55, 095-641-57. Current Use: Retail and office/service uses Current Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (SC) Size: 7 acres (1.5 acres assumed to be developed during the planning period) Reason for Selection: This site has a low improvement value to land value ratio at 0.72, and has experienced some large tenant turnover in the past, which could indicate a need to reposition the site for long-term success in the future. Similar to other retail plazas, it is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers excellent access to goods and services, and augmenting the site with housing would benefit the on-site retailers. The adjacent Leisure World utilizes higher densities, and the Naval Weapons Station is immediately east, and is not a conflicting use. Assumed Development Capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project. Assuming that residential uses are developed on 1.5 acres of surface parking at the site at a calculated density of 37 du/acre18, 55 moderate-income units could be accommodated following adoption of a new mixed-use zoning district.. 18 These are in fact conservative assumptions regarding assumed capacity, as the sites in the Seal Beach Plaza will be rezoned Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) under Program 1.b, which will have a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a maximum 46 dwelling units per acre. B-26 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Site 8 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across PCH from Main Street, the commercial core of the Old Town area. APNs: Development only projected at APNs 043- 260-02, 043-260-05. Current Use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket, and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces. Current Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (SC) Size: 9 acres (2.7 acres assumed to be developed during the planning period) Reason for Selection: This site has an improvement value to land value ratio of 0.72, indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides excellent walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. Moreover, the property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed use as a future possibility to increase site utility. Assumed Development Capacity: With a mixed-use zoning allowing up to 46 units per acre, 2.7 acres of surface parking and a calculated capacity of 37 dwelling units per acre19, the capacity would be 99 above-moderate units without using a density bonus. 19 These are in fact conservative assumptions regarding assumed capacity, as the sites in the Seal Beach Center will be rezoned Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD) under Program 1.b, which will have a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a maximum 46 dwelling units per acre. Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-27 Site 9 – 99 Marina (Rezoning Required) Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and 1st Street intersection. APN: 199-011-10 Current Use: Vacant. At some point, a handball court was constructed on the western edge of the property, and the City does maintain a small section of the property around the court primarily for public safety reasons as it is adjacent to a public park. Current Zoning Designation: Oil Extraction (OE) Size: 4.3 acres (only 3 acres are proposed for redevelopment) Background and Description: Previously a site that supported oil extraction in the area, the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquires received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense, and is generally expected by the community. Assumed Development Capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the 30-dwelling-unit-per-acre default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production expected at the site is 66 units, all of which are assumed to be above moderate, to be extremely conservative. B-28 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology B.3.3 Housing Sites Map Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-29 B.3.4 Housing Sites Tables Table B-6 lists the parcels in the City’s housing sites inventory that do not require rezoning with unit capacity by income category. Table B-7 lists all of the rezone parcels with unit capacity by income category. Table B-6: Housing Sites (Under Existing Zoning) Site # Site Address / Intersection APN Current Density (du/ac) Acres Site Status Identified in Last / Last Two Planning Cycles Realistic Capacity General Plan Zoning Min. Allowed Max. Allowed Parcel Final Affordability Max. Capacity Assumed Capacity Assumed Capacity as a Percentage of Max Capacity 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 199- 061-01 Commer cial Limited LC/RM D – 21.8 0.25 Underu tilized Yes, Last Moderate 5 4 80% 2 Leisure World RV Lot 095- 691-04 High Density Residenti al RHD- PD – 32.2 5.55 Underu tilized No Moderate 179 125 70% Total = 129 Moderate Units Source: City of Seal Beach, LWC B-30 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Table B-7: Rezone Sites Site # Site Address / Inter- section APN Current Proposed Density (du/ac) Acres Site Status Identified in Last / Last Two Planning Cycles Realistic Capacity General Plan Zoning Zoning Min. All- owed Max. All- owed Parcel Sub- total Infill Parking Lot Sizes Max. Cap- acity Assu med Cap- acity Assumed Capacity as a Percentage of Max Capacity Low- er Mod- erate Above Moderate 5 The Shops at Rossmo or 086- 492- 90 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 2.532 0.50 No 116 18 15% 18 5 The Shops at Rossmo or 086- 492- 92 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 13.287 7.00 No 611 258 42% 258 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130- 861- 15 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 8.564 4.00 No 394 147 37% 147 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130- 861- 16 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 2.404 1.00 No 111 37 33% 37 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130- 861- 18 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 2.022 2.00 No 93 74 80% 74 5 The Shops at Rossmo or 086- 492- 80 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 0.69 0.37 No 32 14 44% 14 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130- 861- 17 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 1.801 1.30 No 83 48 58% 48 7 Seal Beach Plaza 095- 641- 44 Commerci al Service SC MC/RHD 40 46 0.81 6.78 0.10 Under utilized No 37 4 11% 4 7 Seal Beach Plaza 095- 641- 55 Commerci al Service SC MC/RHD 40 46 3.433 6.78 0.50 Under utilized No 158 18 11% 18 Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Seal Beach | B-31 Table B-7: Rezone Sites Site # Site Address / Inter- section APN Current Proposed Density (du/ac) Acres Site Status Identified in Last / Last Two Planning Cycles Realistic Capacity General Plan Zoning Zoning Min. All- owed Max. All- owed Parcel Sub- total Infill Parking Lot Sizes Max. Cap- acity Assu med Cap- acity Assumed Capacity as a Percentage of Max Capacity Low- er Mod- erate Above Moderate 7 Seal Beach Plaza 095- 641- 57 Commerci al Service SC MC/RHD 40 46 2.538 6.78 0.90 Under utilized No 117 33 28% 33 4 Accurate Storage 095- 791- 18 High Density Residenti al RHD- 20 MC/RHD 40 46 4.4 1.8 Under utilized , owner interes t in redeve lopme nt Yes, Last Two 83 66 33%20 66 5 The Shops at Rossmo or 086- 492- 56 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 5.43 2.10 No 250 77 31% 77 5 The Shops at Rossmo or 086- 492- 87 Commerci al General GC MC/RHD 40 46 4.306 2.00 No 198 74 37% 74 8 Seal Beach Center 043- 260- 02 Commerci al Service SC MC/RHD 40 46 0.435 7.44 0.20 Under utilized , owner interes t in redeve lopme nt No 20 7 35% 7 20 This percentage is based on the fact that the total parcel size is 4.4 acres, but the parcel’s capacity has been discounted t o only include the 1.8 acres of surface parking and outdoor storage, in addition to another 30 percent capacity reduction to conservatively estimate capacity to account for land use controls and the possibility of 100 no nresidential development. B-32 | City of Seal Beach Sites Inventory and Methodology Table B-7: Rezone Sites Site # Site Address / Inter- section APN Current Proposed Density (du/ac) Acres Site Status Identified in Last / Last Two Planning Cycles Realistic Capacity General Plan Zoning Zoning Min. All- owed Max. All- owed Parcel Sub- total Infill Parking Lot Sizes Max. Cap- acity Assu med Cap- acity Assumed Capacity as a Percentage of Max Capacity Low- er Mod- erate Above Moderate 8 Seal Beach Center 043- 260- 05 Commerci al Service SC MC/RHD 40 46 7.009 7.44 2.50 Under utilized , owner interes t in redeve lopme nt No 322 92 29% 92 9 99 Marina 199- 011- 10 Oil Extraction OE RHD-33 – 33 3 – Vacant land on the market No 99 69 49%21 69 Net New Capacity 2,724 1,036 534 117 385 Source: City of Seal Beach, LWC 21 This percentage is based on the fact that the total parcel size is 4.3 acres, but the parcel’s capacity has been discounted to only include the 3 acres, in addition to another 20 percent capacity reduction to conservatively estimate capacity to account for land use controls . Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-1 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Contents Appendix C: Housing Constraints ............................................................. 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Section C.1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................... 2 C.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 C.1.2 Summary ............................................................................................................. 2 Section C.2 Governmental Constraints ................................................................................... 3 C.2.1 Land Use Controls ............................................................................................... 3 C.2.2 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement .................................................. 32 C.2.3 Permits and Procedures ..................................................................................... 34 C.2.4 On and Off-site Improvements ........................................................................... 40 C.2.5 Federal Land Uses (NWS Seal Beach) .............................................................. 41 C.2.6 Airport Land Use Commission............................................................................ 42 Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints .......................................................................... 43 C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions ................................................................................ 43 C.3.2 Development Costs ............................................................................................ 44 C.3.3 Availability of Financing...................................................................................... 46 C.3.4 Market Constraints Summary ............................................................................. 46 C.3.5 Community Resistance to Housing .................................................................... 46 Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints .................................................... 47 C.4.1 Environmental Constraints ................................................................................. 47 C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................... 48 C-2 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Section C.1 Introduction and Summary C.1.1 Introduction This Appendix covers local governmental, non-governmental, environmental, and infrastructure constraints to housing production in Seal Beach. C.1.2 Summary City policies and regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance, and market factors outside of the City’s control affect the quantity and type of residential development that occurs in Seal Beach. The following summarizes key governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing development as detailed in this Appendix: • The minimum unit size requirements (ranging from 950 sq. ft. or 1,200 sq. ft in certain zoning districts) constrain developing a range of housing types and higher densities. • Current parking standards limit the feasibility of studio and one-bedroom unit types. • The City currently does not have an approved Local Coastal Program (LCP), impacting development review period and costs for projects in the Coastal Zone. • Maximum density standards affect development feasibility by determining the land cost per unit. Even though allowable multi-family residential densities in Seal Beach are technically sufficient to facilitate development of affordable housing, additional incentives/subsidies may be required due to high land values to achieve the City’s desired number of affordable housing goals. • Due to recent legislative updates, zoning provisions for certain residential uses are not consistent with State law (e.g., Low Barrier Navigation Centers, employee/farmworker housing, density bonus, accessory dwelling units, etc.). Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-3 • Economic conditions in Seal Beach reflect a competitive housing market for both for-sale and rental housing. Section C.2 Governmental Constraints C.2.1 Land Use Controls General Plan Land Use Designations Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term General Plan to guide its future. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the basic land uses and density of development within the various areas of the city. Under state law, the General Plan elements must be internally consistent, and the City’s zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the Land Use Element must provide suitable locations and densities to implement the policies of the Housing Element. The Land Use Element of the Seal Beach General Plan sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local development. These policies, together with the zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land to be allocated for different uses within the city. The Land Use Element provides three different densities of residential land uses displayed in Table C-1. The Land Use Element identifies 1,471 acres for residential uses. Residential uses represent 20 percent of the total acreage in the city and nearly 64 percent of the acreage designated for non-military uses. Table C-1: Residential Land Use Categories – Seal Beach General Plan Designation Maximum Density* Total Acreage Low Density Residential (LR) 9 353.7 Medium Density Residential (MR) 17.0 505.4 High Density Residential (HR) 166.4 Planning Area 1 (Old Town/Surfside) 20.0 150.7 Planning Areas 2-3 (Marina Hill/Hellman Ranch/Boeing/Leisure World) 32.2 1,007 Planning Area 4 (College Park) 45.3 15.7 Source: City of Seal Beach General Plan, 2021 *Density expressed in dwelling units per net acre. Low Density Residential: A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is required. Neighborhoods within this designation are developed with stable, high-quality homes and no change in land use patterns in these neighborhoods is expected, with the exception of the addition of ADUs. Low Density Residential neighborhoods include Marina Hill, Surfside, College Park West, and most of College Park East. C-4 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Medium Density Residential: The intent of this classification is to allow the development of two units on the typical coastal lot. Nevertheless, many of the properties within this classification are developed with single family homes. A minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. of land area is required for each unit. Areas within this designation include Bridgeport, portions of College Park East, and a neighborhood adjacent to Old Ranch Town Center. High Density Residential: Three areas of the City fall within this district, which requires 1,350 sq. ft. of land area per unit. In Old Town, single family uses are mixed with multi-family uses including apartments and a mobile home park. The Leisure World development as well as high density developments adjacent to the Shops at Rossmoor represent other examples of this land use. In addition to these residential land use designations, the Limited Commercial area along Seal Beach Boulevard between Landing Avenue and Electric Avenue contains a mixture of high- density residential, low-intensity office, and small commercial uses. Both mixed-use and exclusive residential development are allowed in this area. Zoning Districts The Seal Beach Zoning Code was comprehensively updated in 2010. The Zoning Code provides three residential zones: Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential High Density (RHD). The Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density district also allows exclusive residential or mixed-use development. The relationship between General Plan land use categories and zoning districts is shown in Table C-2. Table C-2: Residential Zoning Districts Map Symbol Zoning District General Plan Category Intended Uses RLD-9 Residential Low Density - 9 Low Density Residential Single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density of up to 15 dwelling units per net acre. RLD-15 Residential Low Density – 15 RMD-18 Residential Medium Density - 18 Medium Density Residential Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. RHD-20 Residential High Density - 20 High Density Residential Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. RHD-33 Residential High Density – 33 RHD-46 Residential High Density – 46 L-C/RMD Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. Source: City of Seal Beach Zoning Code, 2023 Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-5 Allowable Residential Uses There are seven base zoning districts in the city that permit residential use, ranging in allowable density from 9 units/acre in the RLD-9 district to 46 units/acre in the RHD-46 district (Table C-2). Allowable uses include single-family detached houses in the RLD-9 and RLD-15 districts, to multi- family residential condominiums and apartments with base densities from 20 to 46 units/acre in the RHD-20, RHD-33 and RHD-46 districts. As shown in Table C-3, most residential uses are permitted by-right, without discretionary review or design review. Exceptions include large group homes, and some types of residential care facilities, which require approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. The Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (L-C/RMD) district allows commercial use, exclusive residential use, or commercial/residential mixed use. Table C-3: Permitted Residential Uses by Zoning District Housing Type RLD RMD RHD L-C/RMD PO SC GC Single-Unit Residential P P P P - - - Duplex - P P P - - - Multi-Unit Residential - P P P - - - Manufactured Housing1 P P P - - - - Second Units1 P P P - - - - Group Homes2 - - M - - - - Residential Care-General3 - - C - C C C Residential Care-Limited3 P P P P C C C Residential Care-Senior3 - - C - C C C Transitional & Supportive Housing 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Source: Seal Beach Municipal Code, 2023 Notes: RLD=Residential Low Density RMD=Residential Medium Density RHD-Residential High Density L-C/RMD=Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density PO=Professional Office SC=Service Commercial GC=General Commercial P=permitted as of right M=minor use permit C=conditional use permit 1. A manufactured home on a permanent foundation is considered a single-family dwelling 2. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. Includes rooming houses and dormitories but excludes residential care facilities 3. See discussion under Special Needs Housing 4. Permitted subject to the same regulations as for other residential uses of the same type in the same zone Development Standards Development standards vary by zone and are described below. During the Zoning Code update process, development standards were reviewed to ensure that they do not prevent projects from achieving densities at the upper end of the allowable density range. Residential Districts The zoning district suffix indicates the allowable base density. One house per lot is permitted in the RLD district. In the RMD and RHD districts, multi-family housing is allowed with density determined by the parcel size and the required square footage of lot area per unit. For example, C-6 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints in the RHD-20 district, the allowable base density is 20 units/acre, which requires at least 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit1. Additional density is possible through density bonus provisions (Chapter 11.4.55 of the Municipal Code). The Zoning Code currently requires a minimum unit size of 950 sq. ft. or 1,200 sq. ft., depending on the zoning district (not including ADUs and JADUs). In recognition of the need to promote higher densities and a range of housing types, the City proposes to eliminate or substantially reduce the minimum unit size in the Code. This change will occur as part of a broader Zoning Code update to implement various provisions of the Housing Element. Please see Program 3h (Remove Minimum Unit Size Requirements) to this effect. Other development standards regulate building height, lot size, unit sizes, setbacks, off-street parking, lot coverage, building separation and landscaping (see Table C-4 below). Setbacks and lot coverages2 in particular have been reviewed and found not to be an impediment to achieving maximum permitted density. In general, setbacks have already been designed to accommodate maximized lot use, with three-foot side setbacks in many districts. With the addition of ADU and JADU-related zoning updates, single family zones may further intensify lot use (see Programs 1h, 1i, and 1j for more information). Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (L-C/RMD) District The only existing base by-right mixed-use or commercial district that allows residential development3, including 100 percent residential developments, is the LC/RMD zoning district. The LC/RMD district allows by-right single-unit residential, duplexes, and multiple-unit residential projects, as well as Residential Care-Limited Uses. The allowable base density for exclusively residential projects in the L-C/RMD district is one unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area (17.4 units/acre) and projects must comply with the development standards of the RHD-20 district. Mixed-use projects allow second floor residential use with a base density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area (21.8 units/acre). For narrow lots (<37.5 feet) there is a 30-foot height limit, while wider lots are allowed a height of 25 feet/2 stories on the front half of the lot and 35 feet/3 stories on the rear half of the lot. Additional height may be allowed at specific locations designated in design guidelines, planned unit developments, or specific plans, or pursuant to density bonus regulations. Development standards for the L-C/RMD district are shown in Table C-5 below. 1 One acre contains 43,560 square feet of land. At a ratio of 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit, 20 units per acre would be permitted (2,178 x 20 = 43,560). 2 As shown in Table C-4 and consistent with Seal Beach Municipal Code Table 11.2.05.015 and Section 11.2.05.015.B, lot coverages of at least 50 percent are allowed for all multi-family housing projects. 3 The Main Street Specific Plan and Service Commercial districts only allow existing residential, which are considered nonconforming uses that may be continued; however, new residential uses are prohibited . Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-7 Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone (M-C/RHD) In addition, to facilitate the development of housing affordable to all income levels and to meet its RHNA, the City is developing a new mixed-use zoning district under Program 1b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone. This new district will include development standards that allow for the achievement of a maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre, and 100 percent residential development, consistent with the assumptions used in preparation of the sites inventory in Appendix B. Other Districts Other, special types of zoning districts, such as the Planned Development (PD) Overlay District and Specific Plan Regulation (SPR) District, allow residential development through discretionary actions. These special districts allow for deviations from residential development standards in the underlying base zoning district on a case-by-case basis. Floodplain Management4 Table 11.2.05.015 of the Municipal Code (shown as Table C-4 below) identifies that flood zone heights do apply in all residential districts, as described in Section 11.2.05.015.F of the Municipal Code. Section 11.2.05.015.F identifies that in special flood hazard zones, the maximum allowable height for residential structures is increased by the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation. Therefore, the City’s zoning regulations on flood zone heights allow for greater permissiveness in terms of maximum height allowed for residential uses in flood zones, and are not a constraint to housing development. 4 Chapter 9.45 of the Municipal Code provides additional floodplain management regulations for uses within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) special flood hazard areas, but these are also typical of municipal floodplain management procedures and do not represent constraints to housing development. C-8 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Table C-4: Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts RLD-9 RLD-15 RMD-18 RHD-20 RHD-33 RHD-46 Supplemental Regulations Density/Intensity of Use - Lot Dimensions Maximum Density (The zoning district suffix indicates the allowable base density in dwelling units per acre) 1 unit per 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area , plus an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” 1 unit per 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area, plus an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” 1 unit per 2,500 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 2,178 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 1,350 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 960 sq. ft. of lot area See Section 11.4.05.115 for Accessory Dwelling Unit standards. See subsection A for Surfside Standards Maximum Density with State Affordable Housing Bonus (du/ac) See Chapter 11.4.55: Affordable Housing Bonus Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) Interior Lots 5,000 3,000 5,000 2,500 5,000 5,000 (W) See Section 11.4.05.115 for Accessory Dwelling Unit standards. Corner Lots 5,500 3,000 5,500 2,500 5,500 5,500 (W) See Section 11.4.05.115 for Accessory Dwelling Unit standards. Nonresidential Uses 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-9 Table C-4: Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts RLD-9 RLD-15 RMD-18 RHD-20 RHD-33 RHD-46 Supplemental Regulations Minimum Lot Size (ft.) Interior Lots 50 x 100 30 x 80 50 x 100 25 x 100 50 x 100 50 x 100 (W) Corner Lots 55 x 100 35 x 80 50 x 100 25 x 100 55 x 100 55 x 100 (W) Minimum Floor Area (sq. ft.) Primary Dwelling Unit 1,200 1,200(E) 950 950 950 950 Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit 150 150 150 150 150 150 1-Bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit 400 400 400 400 400 400 2+-Bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit 600 600 600 600 600 600 Maximum Floor Area for Accessory Dwelling Units (sq. ft.) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit 500 500 500 500 500 500 Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) 1,200 (L-4) L-3 Maximum Lot Coverage (%) (B) 67 50 75 (B) 60 80 (B) (W) Substandard Lot Standards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (C) C-10 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Building Form and Location Minimum Yards (ft.) Front - Minimum (D) (E) Average 12; minimum 6 Average 12; minimum 6 18 18 (D) (E) (W); L-2 Interior Side - Minimum (A) (D) (E) 10% of lot width; 3 ft. minimum; 10 ft. maximum 10% of lot width; 3 ft. minimum; 10 ft. maximum 10% of lot width; 3 ft. minimum; 10 ft. maximum 10% of lot width; 3 ft. minimum; 10 ft. maximum (A) (D) (E) (W) Corner Side - Minimum 15% of lot width; 10 ft. maximum (E) 15% of lot width; 10 ft. maximum 15% of lot width; 10 ft. maximum 15% of lot width; 10 ft. maximum 15% of lot width; 10 ft. maximum (E) (W) Rear 10 (E) 5 ft.; but when abutting an alley 24 ft. minus width of the alley 24 ft. minus width of the alley 24 ft. minus width of the alley (E) (W) Main Building Envelope Flood Zone Heights Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (F) Maximum Height (ft.) 25 (A) (G) (not to exceed 2 stories) 25 (E) (G) 25 (not to exceed 2 stories) 35 35 (A) (G) (E) (W) Maximum Height of Downslope Skirt Walls (ft.) 6 6 6 6 6 6 (H) Projections Yes Yes (E) Yes Yes Yes Yes (I) (E) (W) Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-11 Minimum Distance Between Buildings on the Same Lot (ft.) 6 6 6 6 6 10-20 (J) Minimum Court Dimensions (ft.) — — — — 15 15 Building Design Exterior Stairways Prohibited Yes Yes Yes Yes No No L-1 Porches Yes — — Yes — — (K) Vehicle Accommodation Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 11.4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading Maximum Number of Curb Cuts for Driveway 1 (L) 1 1 1 1 1 (L) Maximum Width of Driveway (ft.) 18 — — — — — (M) Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (N) Landscaping and Open Space Minimum Permeable Surface/Maximum Paving in Street-Facing Yards (%) 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 (O) Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping (%) 25 15 (E) 15 Yes 15 15 (E), (P); See also Section 11.4.30.015 Planting Required on Downslope Lots Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Q) Pedestrian Walkways — — Yes Yes Yes Yes (R) Other Development Standards C-12 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Accessory Structures Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes See Section 11.4.05.100; (W) 2-Story Cabanas/Manufactured Homes — — — — Yes — (S) Roof Decks Yes — Yes Yes Yes Yes (T) Solar Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes See Section 11.4.10.045 Walls and Fences Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes See Chapter 11.4.15 General Site Standards See Chapter 11.4.10: General Site Standards Landscaping and Buffer Yards See Chapter 11.4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards Signs See Chapter 11.4.25: Sign Regulations Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Coastal Development Permit See Chapter 11.4.35: Coastal Development Permit Reasonable Accommodations See Chapter 11.5.30: Reasonable Accommodations L-1: Exterior stairways providing access from the ground level and/or the first floor to the second floor or above are prohibited when such stairways are not specifically required by the California Building Code. Exterior stairways may be permitted through the building permit process in the RLD-9 district on properties with a second story kitchen existing as of March 9, 1998. In such a case, a covenant shall be recorded on the title of the property stipulating th e property is to be used only as a Single-Unit dwelling. Exception #1: Exterior stairways may be permitted on Single-Unit dwellings located within identified flood zones upon approval of an administrative use permit pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20: Development Permits. Exception #2: Exterior stairways may be permitted on a residential lot to provide ingress and egress to an accessory dwelling unit or jun ior accessory dwelling unit constructed in accordance with Section 11.4.05.115 of this title. L-2: Refer to Appendix A - City Council Approved Blanket Setback Variances. L-3: As used in this section, “living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. L-4: An ADU with a gross floor area between 1,001 and 1,200 square feet is allowed provided a minimum of one parking space is p rovided for the ADU. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-13 Table C-5: Residential Development Standards for Commercial/Mixed-Use Zoning Districts C-14 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-15 Parking Requirements Regulations for Off-Street Parking and Loading are provided in Chapter 11.4.20 of the Municipal Code. The City’s parking requirements for residential uses vary by residential type. Single-family dwellings require two garage parking spaces per unit with up to 5 bedrooms, three spaces for homes with 6 bedrooms, plus one additional space for each bedroom over 6. In Surfside and in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 districts, the required number of spaces may be reduced by one space if suitable driveway parking is available. Multi-family dwellings require two covered parking spaces plus one uncovered guest spaces for each seven units. A reduction in required parking can be approved through the CUP process (Section 11.4.20.020.B). The parking requirements are summarized in Table C-6 below. In order to enhance the development feasibility of small apartments, the Municipal Code was amended in 2013 to reduce the required off-street parking for studio and one-bedroom apartments in multi-family projects to one space when the units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households. As part of the Zoning Code Update, to facilitate housing, including the development of “affordable-by-design” units, the City will reduce its parking requirement for studios and one- bedroom units from 2 spaces to 1 space under Program 3j (Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units). C-16 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Table C-6: Residential Parking Requirements Type of Unit Minimum Parking Space Required Single-Unit Dwelling 2 spaces per studio unit Attached or Detached Single-Family Dwellings 2 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit with up to 5 bedrooms. 3 spaces per dwelling for each unit of 6 bedrooms or more plus 1 additional space for each bedroom above 6 total bedrooms in the dwelling unit All required spaces must be located in a garage except that parking for single-unit dwellings with 6+ bedrooms in Surfside and in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 districts may be reduced by one space if driveway parking is available. Multi-Family Units 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 guest space for every 7 units (1 space for studio and 1-bedroom units when restricted to low/moderate-income tenants) All spaces except guest spaces must be located in a garage or carport. Accessory dwelling units 1 space per unit. Small Family Day Care No additional spaces required (besides the required spaces for the residential dwelling) Large Family Day Care 1 space per employee, with a minimum of 3 provided Group Housing 0.5 space per unit Senior Citizen Housing 0.5 space per unit Transitional Housing 0.5 space per unit Residential Care, General 1 space per 2 employees, plus 1 space per facility vehicle Residential Care, Limited None required above the requirement for the residential dwelling type Residential Care, Senior 1 space per 5 beds Live/Work Unit 1 space per unit for each unit smaller than 1000 square feet 1.5 spaces per unit for each unit containing 1000 square feet or greater floor area or 2 or more bedrooms Source: Seal Beach Zoning Code, Table 11.4.20.015.A.1 State law prohibits cities from imposing parking standards on most ADU’s including those located within ½ mile of public transit. 2. States law also prohibits requiring the replacement of parking for conversion of an existing garage, carport conversion, or if a covered parking structure is demolished to be replaced with an ADU or is converted to an ADU. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-17 Planned Development (PD) Overlay District The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay District (–PD) is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from underlying development standards. This overlay district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches that will achieve superior design solutions to that which would be possible if the project were built in full compliance with the required standards of the base district, and will not cause a significant adverse impact on residences to the side, rear, or directly across a street with respect to solar access, privacy and compatibility. Currently there is only one area of the City within a –PD overlay – Leisure World. The land use and density requirements within a –PD Planned Development Overlay District shall be those of the underlying base district. An application for a Planned Development and any amendment to the Plan shall be processed in accordance with the procedure for conditional use permits. The City Council may approve a Planned Development Plan that deviates from the minimum lot area, yard requirements, building heights, and other physical development standards defined in the base district, while ensuring compliance with the land use and density requirements of the base district. Physical development standards may be modified if the Planned Development Plan includes examples of superior community design, environmental preservation and/or public benefit amenities. Prior to submitting an application for a Planned Development Plan an applicant proposing a project over one acre in gross area or that includes publicly owned land is required to schedule a pre-application study session with the Planning Commission to discuss the general acceptability of the project proposal, issues that need to be addressed, and the need, if any, for any interagency coordination. This preliminary consultation helps to streamline the development review process by identifying issues early in the planning process. Findings for Approval. The City shall approve a PD Overlay District Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Development Plan only if all of the following findings are made: • The project meets all of the findings required for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 11.5.20.020: Required Findings and the finding that the approved plan is consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan and any specific plan. • Development within the PD Overlay District is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation, and/or substantial public benefit. In making this determination, the following factors shall be considered: o Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location. C-18 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints o The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels. o Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households. o Provision of infrastructure improvements. o Provision of open space. o Compatibility of uses within the development area. o Quality of design, and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings. o Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of Seal Beach in the long term. o Creativity in design and use of land. Because the PD overlay district creates additional options for projects within the overlay, it does not pose a constraint to residential development. Specific Plans Chapter 11.3.25 of the Zoning Code allows the adoption of specific plans pursuant to State law. The City has five specific plans. Only the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan and DWP Specific Plan allow for residential uses, and both are fully developed. Development Agreements On August 23, 1999, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1440-A, approving a Development Agreement (DA) between the then-owner of the Old Ranch Golf Course and the City, entitled Development Agreement and Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding Dated July 14, 1997 - Bixby Ranch Towne Center Development Project, August 23, 1998 for the Bixby Ranch Towne Center Development Plan. Pursuant to Sections 3.1.1.3 and 3.2.5.11 of the DA, the owner agreed that uses on parcels within the Golf Course are restricted for a thirty-year period to the following: commercial golf course, public or private; golf course clubhouse; golf driving range and appurtenant driving range uses; golf course maintenance operations; open space; landscaping, and parking for golf course uses. These land use restrictions will end in 2029. The underlying General Plan and zoning provisions applicable to the Golf Course would not currently operate as a constraint on development in the absence of the DA. The Golf Course is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Quasi-Public (Open Space/Golf), and the property is zoned Recreation Golf (RG); under the Zoning Code, single-unit residential and multi-unit residential are allowed in the RG zoning district with a conditional use permit in conjunction with a golf course. Effects of Zoning Regulations on the Provision of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Zoning regulations have a considerable effect on the development of low- and moderate-income housing. In urban areas, and particularly coastal jurisdictions, high land costs can make affordable housing infeasible without large public subsidies. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-19 In 2004, State law was amended (AB 2348) to identify “default densities” that are considered suitable for lower-income housing. For small metropolitan jurisdictions with less than 25,000 population, the default density is 20 units/acre. However, Seal Beach’s population threshold was adjusted above the 25,000-person threshold in 2022, making the new default density 30 units/acre. Some of the existing Residential High Density (RHD) zoning districts allow densities of 30 units/acre or more, with designations for 33 and 46 units per acre. Development standards in the RHD districts allow projects to be built at or near the maximum densities. Height limits are 25 feet in the RHD-20 district, allowing for 2-story structures consistent with a voter-approved height restriction; and 35 feet in the RHD- 33 and RHD-46 districts, which allows 3-story structures. Other development standards such as setbacks and lot coverage are typical for the allowable densities. These regulations help to facilitate the production of low- and moderate-income housing. During the 2010 comprehensive Development Code update process, architects and builders indicated that development standards do not pose any significant constraints to achieving maximum allowable densities. However, nearly all residentially-zoned land is developed, and there is limited capacity for additional housing on these properties. As discussed in Appendix B, the greatest potential for additional residential development is within underutilized commercial areas. The lack of vacant land is a constraint to new housing development. The City will rezone various parcels in the City to provide additional sites for residential development. This action will require the creation of a new mixed-use zoning district. The City intends to collaborate with design professionals, affordable housing developers, and affected property owners to ensure the new mixed-use standards can result in higher density development that includes an affordability component. However, due to the lack of vacant land, the City expects developers will rely in part on density bonus provisions to ensure new residential developments include affordable units in developments (refer to Housing Element Program 1c). The City will also revise to its Density Bonus Ordinance to provide incentives for the provision of affordable units (Program 2a). Seal Beach is committed to implementing a review process and development standards which facilitate, and do not serve to constrain, quality multi-family housing. Local Coastal Program Seal Beach does not currently have an approved Local Coastal Program (LCP). As a result, all projects located within the portion of the city that is within the Coastal Zone are subject to review by the California Coastal Commission. This additional requirement represents an impediment to housing development within the Coastal Zone. To address this issue, the City is currently working on the preparation of an LCP. An Ad Hoc General Plan/LCP Committee has been established to provide guidance to staff in this effort. Program 3c describes the City’s efforts toward the C-20 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints completion of the LCP during the current planning period. Completion of the LCP is targeted for 2025, depending upon funding availability and review times. While a certified LCP will allow the City to have local control regarding coastal zone land use decisions, the City will still be responsible for implementing the Coastal Act. Policy directives from the California Coastal Commission and HCD often conflict with each other, creating challenges for cities like Seal Beach where a significant portion of the jurisdiction and its residential base is located within the coastal zone. Provisions of the Coastal Act can come at the detriment of maximum unit yield for residential developments within the coastal zone. For example, the recent Ocean Place housing development at Marina Drive and 1st Street (known as the DWP Property in the former Housing Element) submitted Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application No. 5-13-003 to the Coastal Commission in 2013 to create a 6.4-acre passive open space park and 32 residential units on the remaining 4.5 acres. The site was originally zoned for visitor-serving commercial use in the 1980s. Coastal Commission originally denied the proposal, on the basis that changing land use from visitor-serving to residential use was inappropriate. A staff report from the Coastal Commission dated August 11, 2014, specifically states: “Private residential use, which is a low priority use under the Coastal Act, is not one of the allowed uses.” This statement is followed by: “The applicant continues to propose a residential use, which is a low priority use under the Coastal Act.”5 The applicant and the City had to spend extensive time and resources to demonstrate that market conditions have changed in the forty years since the visitor-serving use was originally established. Coastal Commission staff preference for the site to be used as a hotel/motel, park, or other visitor- serving commercial over residential use is reiterated several times in documentation associated with this CDP. The project was ultimately approved in March 2015, after two years of complex permitting and negotiation with Coastal Commission.6 Several conditions of approval and project changes were imposed by the Coastal Commission, including: • Park proposal changed from a passive park to active park, including addition of several amenities adding cost to the developer. • Park and trail improvements must be open for use by the general public prior to any residential occupancy. • Parcel along Marina Drive was required to be dedicated free of charge, to be developed with visitor-serving uses including lower-cost overnight accommodations. 5 California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Appeal of Executive Director Determination, Dispute Resolution No. 5-13-1233-EDD, Submitted June 17, 2014, Staff Report Published August 1, 2014. 6 California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Revised Findings, Application No. 5-12-1233, filed October 21, 2014 and approved March 12, 2015. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-21 Over 60% of Seal Beach is located within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Commission’s directive clearly favors uses other than residential on vacant parcels within the coastal zone, which poses a significant regulatory barrier to additional housing projects in over half of the city. CDP processing further complicates the approval process and introduces entitlement risk for a developer. There is also a financial burden for CDP processes that extend into several years or require additional studies to be submitted for Coastal Commission consideration. After the City has an approved LCP, there still is the potential for future residential project challenges and appeals to be raised to the Coastal Commission for decision-making purposes. Further, sea level rise now must be taken into consideration when issuing CDPs per Coastal Commission’s directive. In 2019, a project applicant submitted a CDP to Coastal Commission proposing a lot split at APN 199-064-55 to build two detached housing units on a single vacant lot. Though this property is surrounded on both sides by residential uses in similar size/density, is not waterfront, and does not currently experience flooding or other sea level rise related impacts, Coastal Commission denied the CDP. The property is mapped within a sea level rise hazard zone in a model called CoSMoS (Coastal Storm Modeling System, prepared by the US Geologic Survey). The basis for this decision was stated as “The proposed project was inconsistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, to minimize risks to life and property and assure stability and structural integrity, as the proposal would effectively increase the density and intensity of use of a site in a manner that is different than if the same density were built on a single, unsubdivided lot, in a highly vulnerable area of Seal Beach.” The applicant ultimately withdrew the proposal and resubmitted a new application in 2021. This new application included the same development footprint but eliminated the lot split component and was approved with conditions as application No. 5-20-0646. While the desired density was accomplished without the lot split, Coastal Commission has now introduced concern that lot splits and lot line adjustments in other inland parts of the city will be prohibited in the future Coastal Commission will continue to evaluate properties within Seal Beach against CoSMoS Sea level rise modeling and the City of Seal Beach Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis, both of which indicate significant portions of the City may be at risk in the future. Coastal Commission reluctance to increase density can also be found in the Coastal Commission’s decision-making regarding ADUs and off-street parking requirements. While Government Code Section 65852.2 and the Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 11.4.05.115 allow some types of ADUs to be exempt from parking requirements, the Coastal Commission historically has not permitted ADUs created through garage conversion projects that eliminate parking in the coastal zone.7 The basis for this decision is that eliminating off-street parking would 7 The Coastal Commission affirmed this practice recently in its guidance memorandum dated January 21, 2022, entitled “Updates Regarding Implementation of New ADU Laws.” This guidance memorandum was issued following the 2020 enactment of AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, AB 670, AB 671 and SB 13. C-22 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints require residents to park on-street, thus taking away parking spots from potential visitors, particularly in high visitor-serving areas and/or areas with significant public recreational access opportunities, and where on-street parking is heavily used. Allowing for parking exemptions to be made for specific types of ADUs is anticipated to be included in the Seal Beach LCP, but further coordination and approval from Coastal Commission will be required on this topic.8 Lastly, as a condition of certain CDPs, some residential properties have deed restrictions that require property owners to waive their right to future shoreline protective devices. Depending how sea level rise hazards materialize, property owners in Seal Beach with recorded waivers would be prohibited by Coastal Commission to construct protective devices. This could result in residential unit loss in the future, and an overall negative impact on housing stock and availability. Based on the examples covered above, land use decision making and policy directives from the California Coastal Commission significantly impact residential development within the coastal zone. Because directives from the Coastal Commission and HCD may be in conflict, cities like Seal Beach face challenges in trying to meet the expectations of both agencies. The adoption of the LCP and the addition of procedures for CDP waiver or other types of expedited processing, will eliminate a significant time constraint and reduce the level of uncertainty developers face when proposing residential development in Seal Beach. Provisions for a Variety of Housing Persons with special needs include those in residential care facilities, persons with disabilities, the elderly, persons needing emergency shelter, transitional or supportive living arrangements, and single room occupancy units. The City’s provisions for these housing types are discussed below. Many of these households also fall into the extremely-low-income category. Definition of “Family” The Municipal Code defines “family” as “1 or more persons living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members of a “family” need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house.” This definition is consistent with current law. Group Homes The Municipal Code defines Group Home as: “A dwelling unit licensed or supervised by any Federal, State, or local health/welfare agency which provides 24-hour non-medical care of unrelated persons who are in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual in a family-like environment. Includes: children’s homes; orphanages; 8 The guidance memorandum also emphasizes the need to ensure that new ADUs or JADUs protect coastal resources Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-23 rehabilitation centers; self-help group homes. Convalescent homes, nursing homes and similar facilities providing medical care are included under the definition of Medical Services - Extended Care.” Group homes are permitted in the RHD district subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Planning Commission. There are no separation requirements for group homes. However, in order to comply with State law and remove governmental constraints and facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend its Zoning Code as described in Program 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes). Residential Care Facilities The Municipal Code allows facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions. This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. (§ 11.4.85.020.N) Three types of residential care facilities are recognized in the Code: 1. Residential Care, General. A residential care facility providing 24-hour non-medical care for more than 6 persons in a single unit in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. This classification includes only those facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California. These facilities are conditionally permitted in the RHD (High-Density Residential), PO, (Professional Office), SC (Service Commercial), and GC (General Commercial) districts. Residential care, General uses are subject to the following required findings: a. The proposal is consistent with the general plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the city council; b. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; c. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints; C-24 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints d. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood; and e. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use. However, to remove governmental constraints and facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code as described in Program 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) to review residential care facilities against objective zoning standards that apply to all single-family residences. 2. Residential Care, Limited. A residential care facility providing 24-hour non-medical care for 6 or fewer persons in a single unit, in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. This classification includes only those facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California. Under state law, a state-licensed residential care facility with 6 or fewer persons is considered a residential use and is permitted subject to the same regulations as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. This classification includes residential care facilities restricted to persons 60 years of age or older if there are 6 or fewer residents. Six or fewer persons does not include the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff. In accordance with state law, under the Zoning Code, these facilities are permitted by- right in all zones where single-family uses are permitted, including all three residential zoning districts, RLD (Single-Unit Residential), RMD (Medium-Density Residential) and RHD (High-Density Residential) and in the LC-RMD (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone) district, and are conditionally permitted in the PO, SC and GC districts. However, to facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code as described in Program 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) to allow unlicensed residential care facilities that serve 7 or more residents by-right in residential zones. 3. Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to at the time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in Health & Safety Code §1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes continuing care retirement communities and lifecare Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-25 communities licensed for residential care by the State of California. These facilities are conditionally permitted in the RHD, PO, SC, and GC districts. The Special Use provisions of the Municipal Code recognize the following specific types of Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) projects: o Assisted Living Facility: a residential building or buildings that also provide housing, personal and health care, as permitted by the Department of Social Services, designed to respond to the daily, individual needs of the residents. Assisted Living Facilities may include kitchenettes (small refrigerator, sink, microwave oven) within individual rooms. Assisted Living Facilities include congregate care, board and care homes, and skilled nursing facilities are required to be licensed by the California Department of Social Services. o Independent Living Center/ Senior Apartment: independent living centers and senior apartments that are multifamily residential projects reserved for senior citizens, where common facilities may be provided, but where each dwelling unit has individual living, sleeping, bathing, and kitchen facilities. o Life Care Facility: sometimes called “Continuing Care Retirement Communities”, or “Senior Continuum of Care Complex”, these facilities provide a wide range of care and supervision, and also provide health care (skilled nursing) so that residents can receive medical care without leaving the facility. Residents can expect to remain, even if they become physically incapacitated later in life. Life Care Facilities require multiple licensing from the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Health Services, and the State Department of Insurance. Development Standards for Residential Care Facilities Residential care facilities in a residential district must maintain a minimum distance of 300 feet from another such facility. Facilities in all districts must comply with development standards for landscaping, walls, traffic level of service, passenger loading, and delivery hours. (§11.4.05.105) While these regulations are generally consistent with State law and do not pose a significant constraint to their development, the City will amend its zoning code to ensure its residential care facility regulations comply with State law (see Program 3g). Mobile Home Parks Mobile home parks are regulated under the Residential High Density (RHD) provisions of the Code. There is one mobile home park in Seal Beach (Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park). In 2000, the Redevelopment Agency issued bonds to allow for LINC Housing, a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency to acquire and manage the park. In 2009, the ownership of the park was transferred to Seal Beach Shores, Inc, a resident-owned 501(c)(3) non-profit entity. C-26 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints The City recognizes this mobile home park for its contribution to affordable housing. As noted in Chapter III, the Redevelopment Agency has provided rental assistance and rehabilitation loans and grants to residents of the Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park in order to maintain this important supply of affordable housing in the city. Programs 2d and 4b support continued affordability and rehabilitation activities in this park. Manufactured Housing The manufacturing of homes in a factory is typically less costly than the construction of individual homes on site thereby lowering overall housing costs. State law precludes local governments from prohibiting the installation of mobile homes on permanent foundations on single-family lots. It also declares a mobile home park to be a permitted land use on any land planned and zoned for residential use and prohibits requiring the average density in a new mobile home park to be less than that permitted by the Municipal Code. A city or county may, however, require use permits for mobile home parks. Regulations governing manufactured housing are provided in §11.4.05.075 of the Municipal Code and in state regulations (Title 25, California Code of Regulations). As provided for in §11.4.05.075 of the Municipal Code, a manufactured home shall constitute a permitted use in all residential districts, provided that any such manufactured home is certified under the standards set forth in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1976 (42 USC 5401 et. seq.), as amended at the time of any application for placement of such manufactured home. Moreover, manufactured homes are included under the definition of a single-family dwelling per Municipal Code §11.6.05.010, and are treated by the City as such for permitting purposes. The City’s development standards for mobile homes do not present an unreasonable constraint to this type of development. Employee/Farmworker Housing As described in Section A.3.4 of Appendix A, farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary income is from seasonal agricultural work. Historically, Orange County’s economy was linked to agriculture. While there are still active farming areas on the Irvine Ranch and in some other cities, shifts in the local economy to production and service-oriented sectors have significantly curtailed agricultural production within the county. Today, Orange County is a mostly developed urban/suburban region with a strong local economy. According to recent Census employment data there are no farmworkers living in Seal Beach. However, the California Legislature has established that cities must allow the development of employee/farmworker housing commensurate with local needs. State Health and Safety Code (Section 17021.5) requires that cities treat employee housing for six or fewer employees as single- family residential uses and allowed by right in residential zones which allow single-family uses. Employee housing may not be defined as “a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, (or) dormitory.” The City does not currently allow employee housing (also called farmworker housing) in any zoning districts. Pursuant to Program 1q (Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-27 State Law.), the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and 17021.6. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs are regulated by §11.4.05.115 of the Municipal Code, which is intended to implement State law (Government Code §65852.150, §65852.2 and §65852.22) or any successor statutes. ADUs and JADUs that comply with applicable standards are approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing. Several amendments to ADU law have been adopted by the State legislature in recent years. In October 2022 pursuant to Ordinance 1699, the City adopted revised ADU/JADU development standards reflecting legislation from 2019 and 2020 and comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Since that time, additional amendments have been made to State law, and in August 2023, the City again revised the Zoning Code related to incorporate these changes. Program 1h is included in the Housing Action Plan to continue to monitor legislation and update City regulations in conformance with changes in State law, as necessary. In addition, the City will take steps to encourage the development of ADUs, such as creating an amnesty program for units constructed without permits, and provide incentives and other measures to facilitate the construction of ADUs (Programs 1h, 1i and 1j). Emergency Shelters California Health and Safety Code (§50801) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” In 2013, the Boeing Specific Plan was amended to permit emergency shelters by-right subject to the following development standards: • Maximum of 25 beds • Minimum separation of 300 feet between emergency shelters Sites within this specific plan are located within walking distance of services and employment centers and are served by public transportation. This specific plan encompasses approximately 107 acres of land, which includes two underutilized parking lots in two parcels of approximately 16 and 12 acres that are suitable for shelters. These emergency shelter regulations are consistent with SB 2 and do not pose a constraint to the establishment of such facilities. The maximum shelter size of 25 beds is appropriate in consideration of the number of unsheltered homeless persons in Seal Beach, which was estimated in the most recent Point in Time count to be 8 persons. Under Section 65583 of the Government Code, emergency shelters may include other interim interventions such as a navigation center, bridge housing, and recuperative care. These facilities, in particular navigation centers and recuperative care centers, can operate successfully on limited scales. A 20-bed recuperative care center has operated in conjunction with a non-profit C-28 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints developer’s headquarters in nearby Midway City (unincorporated Orange County island) for many years. AB 139 (2019) revised State law regarding parking standards for emergency shelters. AB 2339 (2022) made further changes to state laws regarding shelters. To ensure that City development standards and procedures continue to provide adequate sites for emergency shelters, Program 1k includes a Zoning Code amendment to revise zoning standards for emergency shelters consistent with current law. Low Barrier Navigation Centers In 2019, the State Legislature adopted AB 101 establishing requirements related to local regulation of low barrier navigation centers, which are defined as “Housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to: 4. The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth 5. Accommodation of residents’ pets 6. The storage of possessions 7. Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms Low barrier navigation centers meeting specified standards must be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. The Housing Element includes Program 1k to address this requirement. The City does not have specific parking standards for emergency shelters or other low barrier navigation centers, defined as Community Social Service Facilities in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code will be amended to include parking standards for emergency shelters, consistent with State law, including establishment of objective standards to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, while not requiring more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (Program 1k). Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing Transitional/supportive housing is normally temporary housing (generally six months to two years) for an individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. This type of housing can take several forms, including group housing or multi-family units, and often includes a supportive services component to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-29 In 2013, the Zoning Code was amended to clarify that transitional/supportive housing is a residential use subject to the same standards and requirements as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, in conformance with SB 2. In 2018, AB 2162 amended State law to require that supportive housing be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi- family uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. The Housing Element includes Program 1k to address this requirement. Single Room Occupancy (SROs) Single-room-occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-type units intended for one or two persons. SROs can provide an affordable housing option for small households with very low or extremely low incomes. In 2013, the Zoning Code was amended to allow SROs subject to a conditional use permit in the RHD zone. However, to facilitate housing for special needs groups, especially lower-income persons, the City will amend its Zoning Code to allow SROs by-right in the RHD zone. Housing for Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities normally have certain housing needs that include accessibility of dwelling units, access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive services. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. This classification includes facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24 hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. It includes hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions. The use of property as a licensed residential care facility for the care of six or fewer persons must be considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zoning districts. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes than otherwise required for homes in the same district. Reasonable Accommodation State law requires that local housing elements “shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” (Government Code §65583(c)(3)). Chapter 11.5.30 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Reasonable Accommodations) provides standards and procedures for ensuring compliance with federal and state law in order to allow persons with disabilities to have equal access to housing on the same basis as individuals without disabilities. The ordinance includes the following provisions: C-30 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints • Application procedures, including the accommodation requested and the basis for the request. • No fee is charged for a Reasonable Accommodation application. • Concurrent processing may be requested by an applicant when another discretionary permit is also required. • Decision by the Planning Commission following a noticed public hearing and based on specialized findings, with a right of appeal to the City Council. • Required findings for approval of a reasonable accommodation, in light of fair housing concerns, as follows: 1. The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws. 2. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 3. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City as “undue financial or administrative burden” is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. 4. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program, as “fundamental alteration” is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. 5. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. The Zoning Code also provides factors to guide the decision-maker in making findings on each relevant factor. The City will review its Zoning Code to ensure its reasonable accommodation procedures and findings comply with State and federal law (see Program 5e). The City has also updated its website to describe the reasonable accommodation process. Given the high percentage of elderly persons residing in the City who may require accommodations to age in place, the City will also take steps to disseminate information to this population group. Density Bonus and Incentives for Affordable Housing Under State density bonus law, cities must provide a density increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan and other incentives when builders agree to construct housing developments with units affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Chapter 11.4.55 of the Municipal Code (“Affordable Housing Bonus”) sets forth regulations and procedures for providing density bonus or other incentives. In recent years the State Legislature has adopted changes to density bonus requirements. Program 2a in the Housing Action Plan proposes to amend the Zoning Code Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-31 to ensure density bonus provisions comply with State law. In addition, the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow density bonus applications to be approved ministerially to provide additional incentives (Program 2a: Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process). Condominium Conversions The conversion of apartments to condominiums is regulated by Chapter 11.4.80 of the Municipal Code for all areas of Seal Beach except Leisure World. Key requirements that must be satisfied are summarized as follows: • Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a subdivision map. • Each building as of the date of conversion shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, and the goals and policies of the General Plan, except where the building is nonconforming in compliance with Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots. • Condominium conversions shall observe the following standards for density. o RMD-18 District: 2,500 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-20 District: 2,178 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-33 District: 1,350 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-46 District: 960 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. • Separate space heating, water heating, and metering/shutoff valves for water, gas, and electricity for each unit. • All common attic areas over individual dwelling units shall be separated by sound-rated assemblies and access to each attic space shall be provided in compliance with the California Building Code. • Tenant's Right to Purchase. As provided in Government Code 66427.1.D., any present tenant of any unit shall be given a nontransferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied at a price no greater than the price offered to the general public. The right of first refusal shall extend for at least 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. • Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the obligations of the rental agreement or lease under which he occupies his unit shall have not less than 180 days from the date of receipt of notification from the owner of his intent to convert, or from the filing date of the final subdivision map, whichever date is later, to find substitute housing and to relocate. Once notice of intent to convert is served to a tenant, any existing long-term lease agreement may be rescinded by the tenant without penalty. Notification of such termination shall be submitted in writing to the landlord 30 days prior to the termination of the lease. C-32 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints • From the date of approval of the Tentative Map until the date of conversion, no tenant's rent shall be increased more frequently than once every 6 months, and at a rate not greater than 50% of the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index (all items, Los Angeles-Long Beach), on an annualized basis, for the same period. This limitation shall not apply if rent increases are provided for in leases or contracts in existence prior to the filing date of the Tentative Map. • The subdivider shall provide moving expenses of 2.0 times the monthly rent, but in no case less than $3,000, to any tenant who relocates from the building to be converted after approval of the condominium conversion by the City, except when the tenant has given notice of his intent to move prior to receipt of notification from the subdivider of his intent to convert. When a condominium conversion is permitted, the increase in the supply of less expensive for - sale units helps to compensate for the loss of rental units. No requests for condominium conversions have been filed in recent years. Program 4a calls for the continued implementation of the City’s condominium conversion Municipal Code section. Short Term Rentals A short-term vacation rental (STR) is a rental of a residential dwelling unit or accessory building for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. Over the past few years, short-term rentals have become an increasingly popular form of lodging throughout the country. The City recognizes the potential land use issues that can arise from operating short-term rentals in Seal Beach’s neighborhoods, such as parking, noise and trash. In addition, housing units that might otherwise provide long term rental housing for tenants are removed from the rental market, further impacting the shortage of available rental housing in the community. Due to these factors, Section 11.4.05.135 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code formerly prohibited short term rentals of residential properties in all areas of the City. However, two appellate courts have concluded that prohibition of short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Therefore, the City Council amended the Zoning Code in 2023 to allow STRs within the Coastal Zone, not to exceed one percent of the residential units, pursuant to Ordinance 1701. The City has applied to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit, and through that process the regulations adopted by the City Council must be reviewed, potentially modified, and ultimately approved by the Coastal Commission to remain in compliance with the Coastal Act. C.2.2 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement State law prohibits the imposition of building standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic or topographic conditions and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such changes to the Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that the change is needed. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-33 The City's building codes are based upon the current California Building Standards Code. Local amendments to the State code have been adopted to require fire sprinklers for some residential construction. Local amendments to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 9.60.020.060.20 requires an automatic sprinkler system be installed throughout the following residential buildings: 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in buildings and structures shall be provided when one of the following conditions exists: 1. New Buildings: Notwithstanding any applicable provisions of Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.19, an automatic fire-extinguishing system shall also be installed in all occupancies when the total building area exceeds 5,000 square feet as defined in Section 202, regardless of fire areas or allowable area, or is more than two stories in height. Exception: Subject to approval by the Fire Code Official, open parking garages in accordance with Section 406.5 of the California Building Code. 2. Existing Buildings: Notwithstanding any applicable provisions of this code, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in an existing building when an addition occurs and one of the following conditions exists: a. When an addition exceeds 2000 square feet and the resulting building area exceeds 5000 square feet. b. 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area as follows:9 i. New Buildings: An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all new buildings, including attached garages. ii. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout when one of the following conditions exists: 1. All existing Group R occupancies and U-1 garages when the total area is increased by 750 square feet or more. 2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout any existing Group R Occupancy building when the floor area of the Alteration or Combination of an Addition and Alteration, is 50% 9 Group R is defined by the California Building Code Section 310 as R -1 (transient occupancy sleeping units such as boarding houses, congregate residents, hotels/motels), R-2 (permanent occupancy sleeping units such as apartments, congregate residences, hot els/motels, live work units, vacation timeshares), R- 2.1(occupancy in a supervised residential care environment), R -3 (occupants are primarily permanent in nature but not classified in R-1, R-2 or R-4), and R-4 (occupants are primarily permanent in nature , reside in a 24-hour basis in a supervised residential environment and receive custodial care). C-34 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints or more of area/value of the existing structure and where the scope of the work exposes building framing and facilitates sprinkler installation and is such that the Building/Fire Code Official determines that the complexity of installing a sprinkler system would be similar as in a new building. c. Any addition to an existing building which has fire sprinklers installed. Exceptions: 1. Existing Group R-3 occupancies converted to Group R-3.1 occupancies not housing bedridden clients, not housing non-ambulatory clients above the first floor and not housing clients above the second floor. 2. Existing Group R-3 occupancies converted to Group R-3.1 occupancies housing only one bedridden client and complying with Section 425.8.3.3. 3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13113 occupancies housing ambulatory children only, none of whom are mentally ill or mentally retarded, and the buildings or portions thereof in which such children are housed are not more than two stories in height, and buildings or portions thereof housing such children have an automatic fire alarm system activated by approved smoke detectors. 4. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13143.6 occupancies licensed for protective social care which house ambulatory clients only, none of whom is a child (under the age of 18 years), or who is elderly (65 years of age or over). Sprinklers are generally required throughout Orange County due to the hot, dry and strong Santa Ana winds, particularly in the fall and spring seasons and the potential of fires. While the amended building codes and enforcement increase the cost of development, the requirement for fire sprinklers does not pose a constraint to affordable housing or other residential development within the city. C.2.3 Permits and Procedures Residential Permit Processing State Planning and Zoning Law provides permit processing requirements for residential development. Within the framework of State requirements, the City has structured its development review process to minimize the time required to obtain permits while ensuring that projects receive an appropriate level of review. Municipal Code Table 11.5.05.025, Review Authority, identifies the City official or body responsible for reviewing and making decisions on each type of application, land use permit, and other entitlements required by the Zoning Code. Three levels of review are identified: the Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-35 Community Development Director, Planning Commission, and City Council. The typical planning approvals and their respective level of review are as shown in Table C-7. Table C-7: Residential Permit/Procedure Review Authority Permit Type Director Planning Commission City Council Development Permit (Zoning Conformance) Decision Appeal Appeal Minor Use Permit - Decision Appeal Conditional Use Permit - Decision Appeal Subdivision Maps - Recommendation Decision Source: Seal Beach Zoning Code, Table 11.5.05.025 However, as shown in Table C-3, all residential uses, from single family detached homes to multi- family apartments, are permitted by-right with no discretionary review if the development application meets the zoning standards and obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are adequately addressed. This means that no discretionary approvals or public hearings for the residential land use entitlement are needed (except as appropriate for CEQA purposes). It should be noted that the City complies with the Permit Streamlining Act when processing all applications, including applications for residential development. It should also be noted that if a subdivision map is required, the project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Residential developments outside the Coastal Zone only require review of project plans by the Planning Division during the plan check process to ensure conformance with applicable regulations and development standards. Projects in the Coastal Zone are currently reviewed for consistency with zoning before the applicant can apply for a Coastal Development Permit. Upon the applicant’s submittal of documentation confirming that any required Coastal Development Permit has been obtained, the applicant may apply for approval of a building permit; the building permit process is described below. Assuming development conforms to zoning regulations, no public hearing is required. The typical time required to process these approvals is 30 days. Required findings for the Community Development Director’s development permit (zoning conformance) approval are as follows (Municipal Code Section 11.5.25.010.D): 1. The proposed use and structure conform with the provisions of the Zoning Code; 2. The proposed use and structure are compatible with uses and structures in the immediate neighborhood; 3. The plans provide protection to adjacent structures from noise, vibration and other undesirable environmental factors; 4. Proposed lighting is directed inward and downward to reflect light away from adjoining properties; C-36 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints 5. The following are designed to avoid traffic congestion, protect pedestrian and vehicular safety and welfare and eliminate any adverse effect on surrounding property: a. Structures and improvements; b. Vehicular ingress and egress and internal circulation; c. Setbacks; d. Height of buildings; e. Walls; and f. Landscaping. Although these findings have not been used to constrain the development of housing supply, Program 3i (Update Findings for Housing Projects to Ensure Objectivity) will modify these findings to ensure that they are objective findings that require no discretion on the part of the Director when applied to housing projects. In addition to the permit types/procedures identified in Table C-7 above, Chapter 11.5.25 of the Municipal Code (Director Determinations) establishes the procedures for determinations by the Community Development Director. The Municipal Code Section 11.5.25.020 (Minor Modifications) does allow for the Community Development Director to approve minor modifications (including to residential projects) from dimensional requirements of the Code, specifically for setbacks, fences or walls, and buffer yards, as well as to floor or lot coverage for approved plans, up to 5 percent. Table C-8 reflects the fact that approval timelines for single-family and multi-family projects in Seal Beach are difficult to estimate, since the City has not received single-family or multi-family housing applications in the last several years 10 , due in part to process and procedural requirements from the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, representative data to provide an accurate estimate of approval timelines for single-family or multi-family housing in Seal Beach is not available. However, at HCD’s request, the City has included estimated approval timeframes based on the level of review (in many cases Director review), approval findings, and discretionary approval procedures (the latter applies for projects that are not exempt from CEQA). The City is anticipating receiving housing development applications during the 6th Housing Element Update Cycle given the many programs in the Main Body Section 4 (Goals, Policies, and Programs) that 10 While the current, in process Old Ranch Country Club specific plan application includes a housing component, as well as a hotel and modifications to the existing clubhouse and golf facilities, and also includes components to be negotiated under a development agreement. The complexity of this type of project makes the project not representative of typical approval timeframes for housing developments. See Section B.2.2 (Current Projects Pending Approval) in Appendix B for more information. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-37 are designed to facilitate the development of housing, including Programs 1b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone and 3c: Local Coastal Program. Table C-8: Estimated Approval Timelines Permit/Approval Type Approval Authority Estimated Approval Timelines Development Permit for Single-Family Dwelling/Duplex Director 1 month Development Permit for Multi-Family (3+ units) Director 1 month for CEQA-exempt projects; 6 to 12 months or more for projects that require CEQA review Note: As stated and shown in Table C-3 above, all residential uses, from single family detached homes to multi-family apartments, are permitted by-right with no discretionary review if the development application meets the zoning standards and obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are adequately addressed. This means that no discretionary approvals or public hearings for the residential land use entitlement are needed (except as appropriate for CEQA purposes). Source: City of Seal Beach In addition, although the City does not have recent data on this, at HCD’s request, the City estimates that the time lapse between project approval and application for building permit would typically be six months or less. However, larger projects may see lapses of a year or more, depending on the complexity of the project. More complex projects may take a longer period to prepare a full set of plans and meet any CEQA mitigation measures that might be required prior to securing the building permit. In addition, development projects within the Coastal Zone require discretionary review and approval by the Coastal Commission following review and approval by the City. Coastal Commission review may take as little as two months to more than a year, depending on the complexity of the project. In the future, if the Coastal Commission certifies a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the City, less complex projects may be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the LCP and Coastal Act, but more complex projects may still require direct Coastal Commission review. See Program 3c (Local Coastal Program) for more information. Minor and Conditional Use Permits The City’s use permit process is described in Chapter 11.5.20 (Development Permits) of the Municipal Code. This includes both minor use permits and conditional use permits; but again, as described in Table C-3, no use permits are required for single or multi-family residential development in residential zones. A Minor Use Permit (MUP) is required for Group Housing in the RHD district. A MUP is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The typical time required to process a MUP is 45 days. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for Group Housing in the PO (Professional Office) district and for Single Room Occupancy units in the RHD district. A CUP is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, and the typical time to process a CUP is 60 days. To the extent required by law, the City will modify its group home requirements to ensure compliance with State law as part of a Zoning Code update to occur following adoption of this Housing Element. See Programs 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) and 3j (Reduce C-38 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units) for more information as part of the City’s efforts to facilitate development of these types of housing. An MUP or CUP shall only be granted if the reviewing body finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing, that the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria as well as to any other special findings required for approval of use permits in specific zoning districts: 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council; 2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; 3. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints; 4. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood; and 5. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use. Once a project requiring discretionary approval is approved by the Planning Commission, applicants outside the Coastal Zone may move immediately into plan check and building permit issuance. Any documents or information required to satisfy conditions of approval may be submitted and resolved during the plan check process. Upon submittal to the Building Division, which may be done electronically for faster and simpler access, the initial review typically takes 14 to 30 days, depending upon complexity of the project. Corrections, should they be needed, take less than two weeks and often only a few days to review. Once construction commences, building inspections and subsequent permits as needed are almost immediate, with inspections typically being available the day after requested. Coastal Development For projects within the Coastal Zone, the applicant must submit an application to the Coastal Commission and obtain approval of a Coastal Development Permit prior to submittal of an application for a building permit from the City. The City has no control over the Coastal Commission review and decision-making timeline. Adoption of the City’s LCP (Program 3c) will eliminate this step in the review process for most projects, reducing the overall time required to permit residential development in the Coastal Zone. Design Review There are no design review requirements in the city, with exception for some provisions in the Main Street Specific Plan, affecting a very limited geographic area and primarily targeting Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-39 commercial street fronts. Objective design standards will be incorporated into the Zoning Code update proposed by Program 1b. Environmental Review Environmental review is required for all developments meeting the definition of “projects” under CEQA. Seal Beach has a number of environmental and development constraints due to its sensitive environmental resources and coastal location. Under State law, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for any development that has the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, which is typical of large projects. Some residential projects are either Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration typically takes four to six weeks to prepare, depending on complexity of the project and required technical studies, followed by a state-mandated public review period. Categorically Exempt developments require a minimal amount of time. As a result, environmental review does not pose a significant constraint to housing development in the city. Residential uses are permitted by right and environmental review is not required, unless the applicant proposes to amend the General Plan or Zoning Code, or deviate from certain standards. As a part of the Zoning Code update (Program 1a), a Program EIR is being developed, which will streamline future development proposals that are consistent with the Program EIR. Requests to Develop Below Anticipated Densities Requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the Housing Element may also constitute a constraint to housing development. Over the last housing cycle, the City received one application to develop a site with less units than anticipated. The Ocean Place development (known in the previous Housing Element as the DWP Specific Plan Property) originally proposed to construct 32 units; however, as discussed under the Local Coastal Program in the Governmental Constraints Section, only 30 units were ultimately constructed specifically due to restrictions placed on the project by the California Coastal Commission. In order to ensure future development implements densities planned for in the Housing Element sites inventory, the City will increase the minimum densities at most housing opportunity sites to 40 units/acre. See Appendix B for more information on the sites inventory. Permit and Development Fees State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Development fees will vary from project-to-project C-40 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints depending on the specific characteristics. Table C-9 summarizes the development fees for typical residential projects. Table C-9: Planning and Development Fees Fee Category Fee or Deposit Amount Planning and Application Fees1 Pre-Application Conference $1,000 Parcel Map $7,968 Tentative Tract Map $9,960 (varies by size) Concept Approval (coastal) $1,328 Major Site Plan Review $6,375 Minor Use Permit $885 Conditional Use Permit $4,427 Planned Unit Development $26,561 Specific Plan $26,561 Environmental Review1 Categorical Exemption $664 Initial Study (review and preparation) $2,500 deposit Negative Declaration $10,000 deposit Environmental Impact Report (review)2 $20,000 deposit Regional Development Impact Fees3 Water connection fees4 $5,307 Sewer connection fees $2,754 Traffic Impact fees (per unit) $789 (condo) $960 (apartment) $1,463 (single-family house) Est. total fee % of total development cost5 SF – 1-3% MF – 3-5% Source: City of Seal Beach Development Services Department, June 2023 Notes: 1. Items with deposits are based on actual processing costs which may exceed initial deposit amount. 2. Applicant is required to reimburse City for consultant costs. 3. Impact Fees are imposed by regional agencies and vary by location 4. Assuming 1” water service line 5. Assumes development cost of $1,000,000 for SF and $600,000 for MF and CEQA exemption The City periodically evaluates the actual cost of processing the development permits when revising its fee schedule. The current fee schedule is based on a fee study completed in 2021. C.2.4 On and Off-site Improvements After the passage of Proposition 13 and its limitation on local governments’ property tax revenues, cities and counties have faced increasing difficulty in providing public services and facilities to Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-41 serve their residents. One of the main consequences of Proposition 13 has been the shift in funding of new infrastructure from general tax revenues to development impact fees and improvement requirements on land developers. Developers of residential tracts in the City are required to install arterial and local streets; sewer; water lines; storm drainage; curbs, gutters, sidewalks; street lighting; underground utilities; and landscaping in the public right-of-way within and adjacent to a tract. These facilities are in most cases dedicated to the City or other agencies that are responsible for maintenance. Without the site improvement requirement there are no other means of providing necessary infrastructure to the City's land parcels. Requirements for site improvements are at a level necessary to meet the City's costs and/or service obligations and are necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare. The costs of these required off-site improvements vary depending on the location and type of development. The City may also impose development fees on future housing developments in order to recover some of the cost of installing off-site improvements including upgrading the circulation system and other urban service systems to serve increased density. Seal Beach has the vast majority of necessary infrastructure, such as streets, electrical and water facilities, already in place. Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a project for rights-of- way, transit facilities and recreational facilities, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. A typical local street requires a 60-foot right-of-way, with two 12-foot travel lanes. The City’s road standards are typical for cities in Orange County and do not act as a constraint to housing development. Table C-10 illustrates the City’s road improvement standards. Table C-10: Road Improvement Standards Roadway Designation Number of Lanes Right-of-Way Width Curb-to-Curb Width Principal Arterial 8 140’ 120’ Major Arterial 6 120’ 102’ Primary Arterial 4 100’ 84’ Secondary Arterial 4 80’ 64’ Local Street 2 60’ 36’ Source: City of Seal Beach Public Works Department The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements including streets and other public works projects to facilitate the continued build-out of the City’s General Plan. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with private development. C.2.5 Federal Land Uses (NWS Seal Beach) The Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach was established in 1944 for weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance and has operated continuously into present day. This federal land use occupies 8.2 square miles within the city, accounting for approximately 70% of the jurisdiction. It is estimated that NWS Seal Beach employs about 740 military and civilian C-42 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints personnel on the installation, with about 320 family members and up to 850 reservists that may be present on training weekends. NWS Seal Beach housing includes 178 enlisted family housing units, 36 units of unaccompanied housing (formerly known as bachelor enlisted quarters or barracks), and eight officer houses; these units are limited to service members stationed on-site. This federal land use constitutes the majority of land within Seal Beach. Within NWS Seal Beach, the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge constitutes approximately 900 acres as a marine protected area to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The Navy contracts with farmers for agricultural uses on-site, primarily north of Westminster Boulevard. While significant acreage of vacant land exists on NWS Seal Beach, federal ownership and active military use prevents additional residential units from being developed on-site without initiative from the federal government. As noted in the land inventory, the Navy is currently moving forward with one site for development. In the unlikely event military uses are ever vacated from this site, existing environmental constraints would limit development. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge would remain protected, and other sensitive habitats on-site could be identified as well. Contamination and hazardous material clean-up would also be required. C.2.6 Airport Land Use Commission The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is the county entity under the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670 that assists local agencies in assuring land use compatibility near Orange County airports. The Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos is located just north of Seal Beach, and includes the Los Alamitos Army Airfield. As such, portions of the City are located within the Airport Influence Area that ALUC reviews under its Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Standards include restrictions on height for safety purposes, as well as noise considerations for compatibility. Most development proposals are accommodated under approvals from the Director or Planning Commission, although amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code would be reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the AELUP when required by State law. As the updated Housing Element and Zoning Code Update undertaken as a part of Program 1a would need to be presented to the ALUC, it is not anticipated that individual projects would require further General Plan or Zoning Code amendments, and therefore would not require ALUC review. Nevertheless, to provide further information on this potential constraint, the following analysis is provided. Nine housing opportunity sites are within planning areas identified in the AELUP, and in drafting the Housing Element, the City reviewed the adopted AELUP for compatibility (also see Section B.2.5 in Appendix B for an in-depth discussion of how the City’s housing sites relate to the AELUP). As set forth in the City’s General Plan, all development on the proposed housing opportunity sites shall comply with the noise criteria and safety standards set forth in the AELUP. The adopted Housing Element acknowledges the requirement that all elements of the General Plan must be internally consistent, and residential development capacities established in the Land Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-43 Use Element and constraints to development identified in the Safety/Noise Element are reflected in the Housing Element. Should a future development trigger review by the ALUC, noise and safety are expected to be the key issues the ALUC would consider. The following sections provide more detail on these topics. Noise The AELUP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system for measuring noise impacts, which is a weighted average of noise over time. The AELUP defines the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise Impact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as “High Impact.” (AELUP Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4.) Residential uses are identified as “conditionally consistent” for the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” for the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (AELUP Section 3, Table 1 “Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise”). The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or Noise Impact Zone 2. Instead, the AELUP provides that residential uses should be developed with insulation systems that bring the sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside, consistent with the City’s General Plan Noise Element and State Building Code. The City’s Noise Element acknowledges the AELUP; it further states that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable for multi-family residential uses. Safety AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at the JFTB. Accident potential zones (APZ) and clear zones (CZ) were set in 1994 and based on Department of Defense criteria. According to the AELUP, prior to1995, the ALUC utilized a 10-year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located within the boundaries of JFTB, and no additional accident potential zones are identified in the adopted AELUP beyond the clear zones. No development is proposed by the Housing Element within CZs. Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions Market Overview: For-Sale Development As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-20), the Region’s home values have increased significantly since 2000 and again in 2012, when they had reached a low point following the Great Recession (2009-2012). From 2000 to 2018, the median home value in the SCAG region and in Seal Beach increased by approximately 151 percent. Following the recovery from the Great Recession and until 2020, interest rates remained at low levels of 3.5 to 4.5 percent. When interest rates are low, capital investment and housing production generally increase, and more buyers are likely to take out a mortgage than when C-44 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints interest rates are higher. In addition, consumers are able to borrow more money for the same monthly payment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, national 30-year mortgage rates dropped to even lower levels, declining to as low as 2.65 percent in January 2021. However, interest rates began to increase in early 2022, to 5.3 percent by May 2022, the highest rate since June 2009.11 The increase in home borrowing rates may impact the performance of the home buying market, but the severity of these impacts is uncertain due to the unusual conditions during the pandemic- recovery, including a shortage of housing supply, increased savings, and significant changes to how many Americans work and live. Market Overview: Rental As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.5.3, Rental Costs), similar to most beach communities in Southern California, Seal Beach rents are relatively high compared to comparable regional rental prices. According to U.S. Census data, the median rent in Seal Beach in 2019 was $1,907 per month. Renters bear the brunt of an overall rise in housing costs without the benefit of fixed-rate mortgages. Per the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.5.3, Rental Costs), Seal Beach renters are less cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened compared to the SCAG region. When looking at renters who are severely cost-burdened across income category in Seal Beach, 19 percent of renters spend 50 or more percent of their income on housing compared to 29 percent of renters in the SCAG region (Appendix A, Table A-22). Additionally, 42 percent of Seal Beach renters spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing and are considered cost-burdened, compared to 55 percent in the SCAG region. In total, 61 percent of Seal Beach renters compared to 84 percent of SCAG region renters experience some level of cost burden. C.3.2 Development Costs Land Costs Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and ongoing increases in the housing market have affected land values. Changes in land prices reflect the cyclical nature of the residential real estate market. The high price of land throughout Orange County, especially in coastal areas, poses a significant challenge to the development of lower-income housing. Popular housing and real-estate websites demonstrate this issue; in the surrounding coastal cities of Orange County like Long Beach and Huntington Beach, an acre of land in a coastal city can sell at a premium. Land cost varies greatly depending on lot location, size, configuration, and the ability to support development. Proximity to the coast, San Gabriel River, or other desirable views can increase property value as well. 11 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Primary Mortgage Market Survey® Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-45 The limited availability of vacant land is a constraint to the development of new housing within the City. Underutilized commercial sites offer the greatest potential for new housing. Additionally, the demographic and customer shift from auto-oriented single-use retail centers to mixed-use, urban and walkable places makes existing successful retail centers candidates for residential development. Density affects development feasibility by determining the land cost per unit. As discussed in the Governmental Constraints section of this chapter, allowable multi-family residential densities in Seal Beach are technically sufficient to facilitate development of affordable housing in that they allow 20 or more units per acre. Given the high land values, additional incentives/subsidies may be required to achieve the City’s desired number of affordable housing goals (see Programs 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1o, 1p, 2a and 2d). Construction Costs Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards and general market conditions. The City has no influence over materials and labor costs, and the building codes and development standards in Seal Beach are not substantially different than most other cities in Orange County. In recent years, construction costs for materials and labor have increased at a significantly higher pace than the general rate of inflation. One indicator of construction costs is the Building Valuation Data, compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data are national, and do not account for regional differences, nor include the price of land upon which the building is constructed. The most recent Building Valuation Data, dated February 2021, reports the national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and single-family homes as follows: 12 • Type I or II, R-2 Residential Multi-family: $157.74 to $179.04 per square foot • Type V Wood Frame, R-2 Residential Multifamily: $120.47 to $125.18 per square foot • Type V Wood Frame, R-3 Residential One- and Two-Family Swelling: $130.58 to $138.79 per square foot • R-4 Residential Care/Assisted Living Facilities generally range between $152.25 to $211.58 per square foot Additionally, labor costs are influenced by the availability of workers and prevailing wages. In January 2002, SB 975 expanded the definition of public works and the application of the State’s 12 International Code Council, Building Valuation Data – FEBRUARY 2021, https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wp- content/uploads/BVD-BSJ-FEB21.pdf, accessed December 15, 2021. C-46 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints prevailing wage requirements. It also expanded the definition of what constitutes public funds, capturing significantly more projects (such as housing) beyond just public works that involve public/private partnerships. Except for self-help projects, SB 975 requires payment of prevailing wages for most private projects constructed under an agreement with a public agency aiding the project. As a result, prevailing wage requirement substantially increases the cost of affordable housing construction. In addition, a statewide shortage of construction workers may be further exacerbated by limitations and restrictions due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Although construction costs are a significant factor in the overall cost of residential development, the City of Seal Beach has no direct influence over materials and labor costs and must comply with regulations under SB 975. C.3.3 Availability of Financing Seal Beach is typical of Southern California communities with regard to private sector home financing programs and interest rates. In recent years, mortgage interest rates have been very low by historic standards, resulting in increased affordability for home purchasers with good credit. However, as interest rates rise, purchasing power declines. The high cost of housing units in the city may create challenges for the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down-payment requirements on a home that is not affordable. Conventional home loans typically require 5% to 20% of the sales price as a down payment. Program 3b, which would support a federal tax credit program, may assist in making home ownership more affordable. C.3.4 Market Constraints Summary Higher for-sale prices and comparable market rents and higher land costs compared to other parts of the SCAG region impose constraints for attracting new housing development in Seal Beach. Additionally, due to high housing demand, Seal Beach is generally built out, so future housing development will be constrained by existing development, require demolishing existing structures, improvements, and uses, and/or be developed on infill sites (the latter forms the majority of the City’s sites inventory as described in Appendix B). The lack of available vacant land may constrain housing production due to the increased costs associated with redevelopment. C.3.5 Community Resistance to Housing Another constraint to housing production in Orange County and Seal Beach is community resistance to new developments. There are various concerns often expressed, including new housing developments will cause increased traffic, place a burden on other infrastructure (e.g., water supply, schools, etc.), adversely affect community character, and result in loss of valuable open space. Regardless of the factual basis of the concern, vociferous opposition can slow or stop development. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-47 While potential opposition to affordable housing exists in many communities throughout Southern California , Seal Beach allows multi-family developments by-right in residential zones to facilitate project review and approval. The City continues to inform the community about State requirements for streamlining housing and works diligently to maintain compliance with ongoing amendments to State law. Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints C.4.1 Environmental Constraints Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones, floodplains, sensitive biological habitat, and agricultural lands. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the state Fish and Game Code and Alquist-Priolo Act). The most noteworthy environmental constraints in Seal Beach are seismicity and soil stability related to a shallow groundwater. The Newport-Inglewood fault runs through the city. Since the city’s topography is relatively gentle, steep slopes and landslides are not a major concern. The City’s land use plans have been designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and also to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public policies. In Southern California, nearly all development projects face potential community-wide environmental constraints such as traffic, noise and air quality impacts, in addition to site-specific constraints. None of the sites identified in the land inventory (Appendix B) have site-specific environmental constraints that would preclude the assumed level of development. Coastal constraints related to sea level rise are discussed alongside the Local Coastal Program in the Governmental Constraints section. Additionally, two major wetland areas are located within the City: the Los Cerritos Wetlands, located on the Hellman Ranch Property, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, located on the NWS Seal Beach property. Several development proposals were issued over the years to develop Hellman Ranch and failed for various reasons. In 1981, the City approved a 1,000-unit project by Ponderosa homes that was ultimately denied by Coastal Commission because the project did not provide for wetlands conservation. In 1989, the City approved a 329-unit project by Mola Development Corp., but the project was ultimately blocked by lawsuits. In 1996, John Lang Homes proposed a 70-unit project to occupy about 10 percent of the property. As part of this proposal, Coastal Commission required portions of the Hellman Ranch Property to be deed restricted for future wetland restoration. During the grading process, cultural resources and Native American burials were found on-site. Ultimately, the project was scaled back to 64 homes. While Hellman Rancho/Los Cerritos Wetlands area C-48 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints constitutes a significant acreage of vacant space within the city, this area is not suitable for residential development in the future. 13 Similarly, the 900+ acre wetlands located on NWS Seal Beach are protected as a National Wildlife Refuge. In the unlikely event the US Navy elects to vacate its property in Seal Beach, these wetlands would continue to be protected by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other land use limitations associated with NWS Seal Beach is discussed under Federal Land Uses within the Governmental Constraints section, above. Wildfire severity zones and FEMA flood zones can also pose constraints to development. The CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify any very high fire hazard severity zones in Seal Beach. The AFFH mapping tool identifies some areas that are within a FEMA 100-year flood zone. The only significant flood zone in the city exists almost entirely within the NWS Seal Beach area. Some minor flood zones exist along the coast, a small flood zone at the western edge of Census Tract 995.04, and a small flood zone surrounding Old Ranch Country Club in Census Tract 1100.12. It is unlikely that these hazard zones would significantly hinder housing development. See Appendix C.2.1 (Land Use Controls) above for an analysis of the City’s existing floodplain management regulations. C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints The majority of Seal Beach is built out and has the necessary infrastructure, streets, electrical lines, and water distribution already in place for new development. New development is able to tap into existing water and sewer lateral lines, with no new sewer or water mains necessary. The City’s General Plan identifies adequate infrastructure and public service capacity to accommodate the anticipated build out. As part of the zoning effort, environmental review will be conducted and all service providers asked to identify any potential deficiencies and means to provide the required capacity. The City of Seal Beach provides several utilities and services to customers within the city including water, sewer, street sweeping, and tree trimming. External providers provide customers with dry utilities. Electricity is provided through Southern California Edison. Internet service is provided through Spectrum. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan was updated in 2021, and recognizes the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Furthermore, the Urban Water Management Plan forecasts residential water savings over time due to anticipated changes in codes, standards, and public outreach on water conservation. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements including streets and other public works projects to maintain existing infrastructure and facilitate 13 The Orange County Register, New hands at the ranch, https://www.ocregister.com/2006/08/19/new- hands-at-the-ranch/, accessed December 15, 2021. Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-49 the continued build-out of the City’s General Plan. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with development. Capacity for additional units would be created as build-out continues and specific projects are proposed. Providers have priority for low- income units. Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-1 Appendix D:Existing Programs Review Contents Appendix D: Existing Programs Review.....................................................1 Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review.......................................................................2 D-2 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. This appendix contains a review of the housing goals, policies, and programs of the previous housing element, and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. This analysis also includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. The findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City’s housing programs for the 2021-2029 planning period. Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs The prior Housing Element identified a number of programs to address the needs of special needs households. Most of these programs (e.g., Programs 1a, 1c, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3d, 4a, 5b, and 5c) relied on the construction of new affordable units to address needs, but no such units were constructed during the past cycle. For example, Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code) supported the development of new housing, though the program did not result in provision of housing that is suitable for those with special needs. Additionally, Program 1c (Second Units) supported the adoption of an ADU ordinance in 2021 and updates in 2022 and 2023, but did not result in units for those with special needs. The results of the programs for households with special needs summarized below reflect very limited progress made towards housing resources for those with special needs. To improve housing conditions for special needs groups in the 6th cycle, the City is implementing the following programs: •Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code •Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone) •Program 1g (Community Engagement and Outreach) •Program 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units) •Program 1k (Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers, and Transitional/Supportive Housing) •Program 2a (Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process) •Program 2c (Affordable Housing Resources) •Program 1r (Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with State law) •Programs 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) •Program 3h (Remove Minimum Unit Size Requirements) •Program 3j (Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units) •Program 3k (Remove Conditional Use Permit Requirement for Single Room Occupancy Units) Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-3 •Program 4c (Provide Home Renovation Assistance Loans to Lower Income Households through Community Development Block Grants) •Program 4d (Provide Home Renovation Assistance Loans to Lower Income Households through the Orange County Single-Family Rehabilitation Program) •Program 5g: Accessible Housing •Program: 5h (Fair Housing Task Force) •Program 5i (Affordable Housing Benefits Campaign) •Program 5j (Fair Housing Mobility Program) Seniors and Disabled Residents As described in Appendix A, approximately 39% of the City’s population is aged 65 years or older. The high percentage of elderly residents is attributed to the presence of Leisure World, a senior community where residents must be aged 55 or older to purchase homes and reside in the neighborhood. Persons in this age group are more likely to be disabled. No new units targeted to this population were constructed during the last cycle. However, the City successfully continued to subsidize improvements to bathrooms in homes owned by 714 income-qualified households of Leisure World. These improvements allow residents to age in place and accommodate disabilities. The City also continued to make available information regarding fair housing and other housing programs. For example, Program 5a (Fair Housing Services) facilitated fair housing and refer inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, and Program 5c (Housing Information and Referral Services) supported the housing and referral services provided by the Housing Authority of Orange County by posting contact information on the City website and at public buildings. The City offers a number of programs to enhance the quality of life for its seniors. For example, Program 5b (Removal of Architectural Barriers) utilized the Home Improvement Program to remove architectural barriers and encourage participation by elderly and disabled residents. The City offers two transportation programs to travel around the City; one is a fixed-route shuttle, and the other is a Dial-A-Ride program. The City also offers a meal delivery program to seniors; provides a lunch program; sponsors a pinochle club; and arranges tax preparation assistance. Developmentally Disabled Persons Persons with developmental disabilities can obtain services through the Dayle McIntosh Center. The Orange County Regional Center serves more than 60 qualified residents in Seal Beach. The City does not provide services for this population, but continues to make available information regarding resources on its website and at City facilities. Extremely Low-Income Households Program 2b (Affordable Housing Resources) included an objective to prioritize assistance for extremely low-income units and projects to meet the City’s regional housing need of one extremely low-income unit during the planning period. However, there were no units developed D-4 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review for this population during the last cycle. The City continued to publicize housing programs and services that could assist this population. Large Households The number of large households in Seal Beach is significantly lower than in the County, primarily because of the number of elderly households comprised of one or two persons. Nevertheless, the City continued to publicize programs and services that could meet the needs of this population. There were no new units designed to meet the needs of this group constructed during the last cycle as stated in Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code). Female Headed Households In Seal Beach, female-headed households comprise approximately six percent of all households, compared to 14 percent of households in the SCAG region (Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.3.4 Special Housing Needs). In order to support the community’s population of female-headed households, the City publicized programs and services to meet the needs of this population. However, as stated previously for Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code), there were no new units designed to meet the needs of this group constructed during the last cycle. Farm Workers At present, there has not been demand from the Orange County farm labor force for housing in Seal Beach to provide housing for agricultural labors in nearby communities. Homeless Persons In January 2019, the Orange County “Point-in-Time” survey reported a total of eight unsheltered persons and no sheltered persons living in Seal Beach (Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.3.4 Special Housing Needs). The City has identified locations for shelters in accordance with State law. No applications for shelter development were received. The City will amend its Zoning Code to be in compliance with new State law requirements. Additionally, as stated in Program 1d (Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing), the City has taken a proactive approach of advancing a partnership with the County of Orange for mental health services and placement of individuals and families in need of housing assistance. Table D-1 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the previous Housing Element. Table D-2 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for future policies and actions. Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-5 Table D-1: Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives, 2013-2021, City of Seal Beach Program Category Quantified Objective Progress New Construction Extremely Low 1 Very Low 0 Low 3 Moderate 4 2 Above Moderate 72 31 Total 80 33 Rehabilitation** Very Low - Low - 425 210 Moderate - Above Moderate - Total -635 Conservation & Assistance*** Very Low Low 25 25 Moderate 75 75 Above Moderate -- Total 100 100 *Quantified objectives for new construction are for 2006 -2014 RHNA period **Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park rehabilitation and Leisure World VL/L-Income Accessibility Program ***Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park preservation D-6 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Table D-2: Housing Element Program Evaluation, 2013-2021, City of Seal Beach Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions Program 1a Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code. 1. In order to enhance the feasibility of affordable housing development, the City will offer incentives and concessions such as expedited processing, administrative assistance with applications for funding assistance, and modified development standards. 2. The City will report its progress in implementing this program to HCD on an annual basis, pursuant to Government Code §65400. 3. The City shall comply with the “no net loss” provisions of Government Code §65863 through the implementation of an ongoing project-by- project evaluation process to ensure that adequate sites are available to accommodate the City’s RHNA share throughout the planning period. The City shall not reduce the allowable density of any site in its residential land inventory, nor approve a development project at a lower density than assumed in the land inventory, unless both of the following findings are made: a) The reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element; and b) The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing need pursuant to Government Code §65584. If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the Housing The City continued to support new construction of residential projects, and reported progress in the annual report to HCD. There was no net loss of housing. The City successfully facilitated the development of Ocean Place (at the DWP property) with the development of 30 new homes. This site was included in the prior Element’s site inventory, and the ultimate development density was slightly higher than originally designated, despite a requirement from the Coastal Commission to set aside a portion of the site for visitor-serving uses. This project was the first major development project within the generally built-out city in many years. Staff has significantly streamlined the development process through implementation of an online submittal portal, providing 24/7 access to the community development virtual counter. The website has also been updated to improve access to information to expedite the process for development applications and building plan check. Additionally, the city is currently in the process of implementing a new permitting software, which will offer shared Modify This program is considered successful with the development of new housing on a previously identified site; however, this program did not result in provision of housing that is suitable for those with special needs, such as disabilities, elderly households, large households, and female headed households. No affordable units were constructed. Some enhancements are included in the 6th Cycle to more thoroughly address compliance with Government Code and internal City efforts. Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-7 Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions Element land inventory not being adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Sec. 65584, the City may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate and available sites with an equal or greater residential density so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. access to data between divisions, and further streamline the development process. Program 1b Land Use Compatibility. Continue to use zoning and other land use controls to ensure the compatibility of residential areas with surrounding uses The City continues to implement zoning processes that support residential uses, including facilitation of the Ocean Place development project of 30 new homes. Continue This program is considered successful in creating livable environments that support residential uses, particularly access to parks, open space, and amenities that increase desirability. Program 1c Second Units. Continue to allow for the development of second units consistent with state law and the Municipal Code The City adopted a new ordinance to allow for development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, in conformance with State law. The ordinance includes provisions that streamline most development applications to a plan check process Interest in ADUs is growing, with seven permits issued in 2022 and as many submitted in the first 8 months of 2023.. Modify This program is considered successful with the adoption of an ADU ordinance in 2021 and updates in 2022 and 2023. Future Zoning Code changes will be implemented to align with state law as needed. The City will also take steps to ensure homeowners are D-8 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions aware of the opportunity to create ADUs and create incentives to encourage the occupancy of these units by households and individuals in lower income categories and those with special needs. Program 1d Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing. Continue to facilitate the provision of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing consistent with state law The Zoning Code was amended in 2013 to allow these uses. Nevertheless, no applications for emergency shelters or transitional/supportive housing were submitted. However, the City has taken a proactive approach to support those experiencing homelessness, including advancement of a partnership with the County of Orange for mental health services and placement of individuals and families in need of housing assistance. Modify The City will continue to support shelters and supportive housing consistent with State law, and the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code will be amended to bring standards for shelters and transitional/supportive housing into compliance with State law. Staff will continue work to prioritize partnerships and innovative solutions for those experiencing homelessness. Program 1e Innovative Land Use and Construction Techniques Continue to encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs provided that basic health, safety, and aesthetic considerations are not compromised. Encourage the use of planned Limited development occurred during the last planning period; therefore, effectiveness of innovative techniques is difficult to evaluate. However, recent interest in land recycling by Eliminate As laws change related to housing implementation, sustainable development, and resource conservation, this program has become Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-9 Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions unit developments, mixed use, and alternative construction methods. The City will provide flexibility in development standards and siting requirements to minimize development costs developers has raised questions about new types of construction and housing. irrelevant and has not proven beneficial. Program 1f Provision of Adequate Public Facilities and Services. Continue to utilize environmental and other development review procedures to ensure that all new residential developments are provided with adequate public facilities and services The City successfully utilized this process to ensure adequate facilities and services to new housing during the prior planning period. . Continue This program is considered successful and must be continued to ensure all new development is adequately served. The City’s Environmental Impact Report, currently underway to support the rezoning process, will provide new, relevant information to inform this program. Program 2a Density Bonus. Continue to promote the use of density bonuses among potential residential developers No density bonus applications were submitted within the planning period.Modify Pursuant to State law, the City will continue to support density bonus projects. The City’s Zoning Code will be amended to provide consistency with applicable state laws. The City will expand outreach to developers regarding the use of density bonuses to provide affordable units. Program 2b Affordable Housing Resources. • Maintain a list of non-profit housing developers active in Orange County. • Contact qualified non-profit housing developers This program is considered successful. The City proactively sought out resources to support affordable housing, including successfully Modify The City will continue to seek out resources to support the preservation D-10 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions to explore opportunities for affordable housing development annually, or whenever development opportunities arise. • Explore a variety of funding resources, such as Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) funds and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Periodically consult with the State Department of Housing and Community Development HCD for current and new funding availability. • Provide interested developers with an inventory of residential sites available for development. • Prioritize assistance for extremely-low-income (ELI) units and projects such as single room occupancy (SRO) and supportive housing commensurate with the City’s regional housing need of 1 ELI unit during the current planning period. obtaining Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PHLA) through the County of Orange, as well as a direct allocation of Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) funds. CDBG and PHLA funds are programmed to support low- income households with aging-in-place bathroom renovations and have assisted approximately 714 elderly households. LEAP funds have been allocated to development of the Housing Element and the preparation of the Local Coastal Program, which will further assist in reducing barriers to preservation and construction of affordable housing by streamlining the development approval process. Staff continues to consult with non- profit developers on housing opportunities, though no proposals for deed-restricted affordable housing were submitted in the prior planning period. Other than renovations described above, the City did not make any significant progress in addressing the needs of households with special needs. and creation of affordable housing The City will be more proactive in seeking relationships with affordable housing developers who can help address the need for affordable units, as well as those addressing the needs of households with special needs, such as the elderly and disabled. Program 2c Land Write Downs and Assistance with Off-Site Improvements Consider subsidizing the cost of land and off-site improvements for affordable housing development on a project-specific basis when feasible No development applications for affordable housing were received during the prior planning period; however the City will continue to consider subsidizing costs on a project-specific basis. Continue This program may continue to be useful in the future, should a feasible project be presented. The City does not receive a direct allocation of funding typically seen in housing Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-11 Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions development, such as CDBG or HOME funds. The City remains willing to work with the private and non- profit development industry to partner for other resources such as tax allocation credits and other resources developers may access. Program 3a Section 8 Rental Assistance • Continue to cooperate with the Orange County Housing Authority in providing Section 8 rental assistance to very-low-income households • Assist the County Housing Authority in promoting the Section 8 program to both property owners and eligible renters by publicizing the program on the City’s website, the City newsletter, local libraries, and within Leisure World. The City continued to cooperate with OC Housing Authority to support the Section 8 program by posting available information. There are currently 5 Housing Choice Vouchers used in Seal Beach. Modify Though housing vouchers are limited in supply and allocated by the County, the City will continue to support this effort in partnership. The City will expand its outreach program to familiarize landlords and potential tenants with the program. Program 3b Mortgage Credit Certificates Continue participation in the MCC program and contact the County annually to determine current program status. Distribute program information at City libraries and on the City website. The number of households assisted with this program will depend on market conditions and program availability The City continued to cooperate with OC Housing Authority to support the MCC program by posting available information. Continue The City will continue to support sharing information on the MCC program. D-12 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions Program 3c Maintenance of Affordability Covenants on City or Agency-Assisted Housing Continue to monitor the affordability of any very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units assisted with public funds Under redevelopment dissolution law, the County of Orange was named the Housing Successor, and covenants were transferred to the County for oversight. Modify This program was not implemented as no new affordable units were developed; however, monitoring programs will be established when new affordable units are developed. Program 3d Local Coastal Program Prepare and obtain Coastal Commission certification of a Local Coastal Program The City was able to obtain grant funding from the Coastal Commission to develop a Local Coastal Program. A draft Land Use Plan was submitted in Fall 2021, and comments returned. Revisions were completed and submitted to the Coastal Commission in May 2023, with the goal of having a completed LCP submitted to the Coastal Commission in Summer 2025. Continue The Local Coastal Program process is moving forward in coordination with the California Coastal Commission. Program 4a Condominium Conversion Continue to enforce the Condominium Conversion Ordinance No units were converted to condominiums during the last planning period. Continue The City will continue to enforce Code Section 11.4.80 to protect tenant rights and reduce impacts to lower income households Program 4b Replacement Housing in Local Coastal Zone Continue to review development projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that replacement low- and moderate-income housing is provided if feasible The City monitored development projects for loss of housing. No housing units were lost. Modify This program will be modified to meet current laws regarding replacement housing in all areas of the city. Program 4c Housing Conditions Monitoring Continue to conduct annual surveys of the targeted beach area to identify housing units with deferred maintenance issues and mail brochures The city sought to address deferred maintenance issues for all housing, including the beach areas. However, the City does not Modify The City will expand windshield surveys throughout the city to Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-13 Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions about the City’s rehabilitation programs to owners of the identified units. Apply for funding assistance annually from the Urban County program if rehabilitation needs are identified have funding available to support a rehabilitation program for beach units. The Urban County program (CDBG subrecipient program) is available only to designated census tracts, which do not include beach areas. monitor conditions and work with property owners on deferred maintenance or blight issues. Program 4d Zoning and Building Codes Enforcement • Continue to enforce the City’s zoning and building codes through contract code compliance services. • Provide information about assistance programs to property owners with violations The City provides code enforcement services through a Neighborhood Services Officer. The program has very effectively assisted in maintaining health and safety standards set forth in the Municipal Code. In most cases, issues are resolved by providing information to the property owners, and citations do not need to be issued. Continue The City continued to enforce the City’s zoning and building codes and provide information to property owners. City staff will continue to seek out programs that may be available to property owners needing assistance to resolve code violations. Program 5a Fair Housing Services Continue to provide fair housing and tenant landlord counseling services through the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC). The Community Development Director will serve as the primary point of contact for fair housing issues and will refer inquiries to the FHCOC The number and type of issues handled by FHCOC within Seal Beach is typical of the issues addressed in other communities. Modify The City continued to facilitate fair housing and refer inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County. Efforts will be expanded to ensure tenants and landlords understand fair housing laws and available resources to enforce them through information on the City’s website and workshops. In addition, the City will take a more proactive approach to D-14 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions understanding the nature and location of fair housing complaints that may be filed. Program 5b Removal of Architectural Barriers Continue to utilize the Home Improvement Program to remove architectural barriers and encourage participation by elderly and disabled residents The City currently utilizes CDBG funds as a sub-recipient through the County to make necessary improvements to bathrooms within the Leisure World community. The improvements modify bathtubs, showers, and toilets to allow seniors to age in place. Funding varies by year, though the program has been in place since 2005. From the FY 2012-13 program, through December 2021, a total of $1.58 million has been spent to improve 714 units. Residents must income-qualify for assistance. In 2020, the City, in partnership with the County, was able to obtain additional funding for this program through PLHA. Modify This program will be modified to better describe the activity and goals. Program 5c Housing Information and Referral Services Continue to support the housing and referral services provided by the Housing Authority of Orange County by posting contact information on the City website and at public buildings The City has not successfully tracked referral outcomes Modify The City will continue to collaborate with the OC Housing Authority and will compile information on other housing resources. Further, city staff will more actively engage with the County and other regional partners to seek out resources and solutions to housing issues and to Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-15 Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions ensure that information provided by the City is accurate. Program 6a Green Building Techniques • Distribute a Green Building Tips handout at City Hall and on the City website. • Continue to offer reduced fees for residential remodeling projects that include energy conservation features The success of this effort has not been tracked Modify The city will continue to provide information on the benefits of energy saving techniques. Program 6b Promote Smart Growth Seek to incorporate smart growth principles in future land use and zoning amendments The recent Ocean Place development occurred utilizing smaller lots within walking distance of a number of amenities, including a new park. Continue The City will consider how to better implement this program with the Zoning Code update. 1 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E: Public Participation Summary Contents Appendix E: Public Participation Summary ............................................... 1 Section E.1 Public Participation Summary .............................................................................. 2 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 2 Section E.1 Public Participation Summary Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played an important role in the formulation and refinement of the City’s housing goals and policies and in the development of a Land Use Plan which determines the extent and density of future residential development in the community. The City conducted a diligent public outreach and engagement effort for development of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The aim of this outreach was to better understand the perspective of all segments of the community and produce more effective and context-sensitive policies and programs to support housing development and address special needs populations. Public outreach also allowed the City to identify concerns of citizens and housing service providers and integrate local knowledge into the Housing Element that was not available in reports, online, or in City documents and may not have been initially apparent. This Appendix summarizes the outreach efforts and input received in two sections: • Summary of Public Engagement: An overview of the participants and public comments received. • Documentation: Copies of the City’s public notice list and a publicly available F&Q resource guide produced to support the outreach efforts. Early in the Housing Element update process the City created a web page (https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Housing-Element-Update) where Frequently Asked Questions (see below), an online housing survey, meeting notices, agendas, draft documents and other reference materials were posted for review. The City received 14 comments regarding the information presented on the website. The City also created a Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee to assist in the selection of housing sites. This committee held two public meetings. Housing organizations, service providers and other interested parties that were included in the distribution of public notices are shown in Table C-1. Table C-2 provides a summary of questions raised during Housing Element preparation and responses to those questions. As shown in Table C-1, more than a dozen organizations representing the interests of lower- income households, persons with special needs, and affordable housing developers were invited to participate in the Housing Element update at each step of the process. City residents and other interested stakeholders had many opportunities to recommend strategies, review, and comment on the Housing Element update. 3 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element City Council/Planning Commission study session March 8, 2021 Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meeting April 5, 2021 Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meeting April 27, 2021 City Council/Planning Commission study session September 20, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing January 18, 2022 City Council public hearing February 7, 2022 ALUC Hearing February 17, 2022 City Council public hearing to overrule ALUC August 29, 2022 Zoning Update Study Session April 24, 2023 Zoning Update Community Meeting October 11, 2023 During the review process, including review by HCD, three (3) letters or emails were received. These letters addressed a variety of issues and concerns, including the need to focus on households with extremely low and low incomes; compatibility with the adjacent JFTB; land use restrictions that may prevent housing development; and the desire for a more interactive public participation process. The City has also engaged key stakeholders in discussions about the zoning changes that must be made to accommodate the RHNA. These stakeholders include planners, development professionals, a mortgage broker, real estate investors, property managers, an affordable housing advocate, affordable housing developers, and former City officials, both elected and appointed. Many were residents of Seal Beach. The stakeholders have informed the approach to promoting housing in the Main Street/Downtown area, and development of mixed-use areas. The City has also engaged in discussions with representatives from the Navy to discuss the need for affordable housing and how a collaboration might also address the Navy’s needs for services for its employees and service members. Discussions with affordable housing developers occurred regarding potential development of the City’s site on the Navy base (See Section 4 of the Housing Element for relevant programs). Prior to submittal of all drafts to HCD for review, this document was posted on the City’s website for seven days to solicit public comment. Notice of the draft’s availability was shared with all persons/organizations who requested to be notified of milestones in the Housing Element review process. 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 4 Table C-1 Public Notice Distribution List City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 League of Women Voters of Central Orange County P.O. Box 10621 Santa Ana, CA 92711 OC Association of Realtors 25552 La Paz Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Neighborhood Housing Services of OC 198 W. Lincoln Ave., 2nd Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County 2200 S. Ritchey St. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Jamboree Housing Corp. 17701 Cowan Avenue, #200 Irvine, CA 92614 The Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Ave Ste 900 Irvine, CA 92612 Community Housing Resources, Inc. 17701 Cowan Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 BIA/OC 17744 Sky Park Circle #170 Irvine, CA 92614 Dayle McIntosh Center 501 N. Brookhurst Street, Suite 102 Anaheim, CA 92801 OC Housing Providers 25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Regional Center of Orange County P.O. Box 22010 Santa Ana, CA 92702-2010 OC Business Council 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 OC Housing Trust 198 W. Lincoln Ave., 2nd Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Mercy Housing 480 S Batavia St Orange, CA 92868 OC Housing & Community Development Attn: Rebecca Leifkes 1501 E. St Andrew Place, 1st Floor Santa Ana, CA 92705 Orange County Housing Authority 1501 E St Andrew Pl Santa Ana, CA 92705 City of Long Beach Development Services Department Linda F. Tatum, Director 411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Los Alamitos Development Services Department Ron Noda, Acting Director 3191 Katella Avenue Los Alamitos, CA 90720 City of Huntington Beach Community Development Dept Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director 2000 Main Street – 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Orange County Water District Michael Markus, General Manager 18700 Ward St Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Orange County Sanitation District Jim Herberg, General Manager 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 City of Garden Grove Comm. and Economic Development Lisa Kim, Director/ACM 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 Rossmoor Community Services District Joe Mendoza, General Manager 3001 Blume Dr, Rossmoor, CA 90720 5 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element OC Development Services Amanda Carr, Interim Deputy Director P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Gregg T. Smith, Public Affairs Officer 800 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach, CA 90740-5000 California Coastal Commission South Coast District Amber Dobson, District Manager 301 E Ocean Blvd Suite 300, Long Beach, CA 90802 Southern California Edison P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 SoCal Gas Company Centralized Correspondence PO Box 1626 Monterey Park CA 91754-8626 City of Westminster Community Development Department Alexa Smittle, Director 8200 Westminster Boulevard Westminster CA 92683 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairman P.O. Box 393 Covina, California 91723 Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of CA Tribal Council 5450 Slauson Avenue, Suite 151 PMB Culver City, California 90230-6000 Gabrieleño Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap P.O. Box 86908 Los Angeles, California 90086 Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, California 91778 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, California 90707 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Joyce Stanfield Perry, Tribal Manager 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, California 90603 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians - Acjachemen Nation David Balardes 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, California 92799 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Director P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, California 92581 Ti ‘AT Society Cindi Alvitre 6515 East Seaside Walk #C Long Beach, California 90803 Los Alamitos Unified School District 10293 Bloomfield St. Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos 4522 Saratoga Ave, Building 15 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 OC Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 6 Table C-2 Summary of Public Comments City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Comment Response Since most single-family lots are allowed 2 ADUs, does the sites inventory allow the City to assume the total potential number of ADUs for RHNA purposes? State policy does not allow the full ADU potential to be assumed for RHNA purposes. Cities may estimate potential future ADU production based on past trends. What does “by-right” development mean? “By-right” means the development review process must be based only on objective standards involving no personal judgment. If a property is listed in the inventory of housing sites, is the City or the property owner required to develop the property during the 8-year planning period? No – the sites listed in the inventory only indicates that the potential exists for additional housing development. However, through various programs, the City is encouraging and facilitating development at these sites. If a property listed in the inventory of housing sites is shown as having potential for low-income housing, can the property only be developed with affordable housing? No – sites shown as accommodating low-income housing only indicates that the property is considered suitable for low-income housing under State law. Generally, sites that allow a density of at least 30 units/acre are considered suitable for low-income housing in cities with a population of greater than 25,000 in Orange County. How were the issues in Seal Beach that limit development areas, such as sensitive environmental areas and Federal Government land ownership, factored into the Housing Element and RHNA? These issues were considered as part of the RHNA process and the Housing Element discusses these constraints to housing development. Moreover, environmental impacts are discussed in the CEQA document for this project. Affordable housing is very unlikely to be built in high- cost areas like Seal Beach. What happens if the City doesn’t meet the RHNA goals? Cities that do not achieve their RHNA allocations may be required to offer “streamlined” permit processing under SB 35. 7 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 8 9 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 10 11 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 12 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-1 Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).......................... 1 Section F.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 Section F.2 Public Participation .............................................................................................. 2 F.2.1 Issues Potentially Reducing Participation ............................................................. 2 Section F.3 Assessment of Fair Housing ................................................................................ 4 F.3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity .............................................. 4 F.3.2 Integration and Segregation ................................................................................. 9 F.3.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ......................................... 29 F.3.4 Access to Opportunity ........................................................................................ 33 F.3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ....................................................................... 43 F.3.6 Other Relevant Factors ...................................................................................... 55 F.3.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues ....................................................................... 58 Section F.4 Site Inventory ..................................................................................................... 60 F.4.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation ...................................................... 60 F.4.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity......................................................... 61 Section F.5 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions ..................................................... 62 Section F.1 Introduction Housing Element law (Government Code Sec. 65583.2(a)) requires the inventory of sites to be consistent with fair housing objectives. As described in more detail in the following pages, the existing sites inventory is comprised largely of underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development and potential accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Because the current capacity of these sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, additional candidate sites for rezoning are identified in Table B-2. The focus of the sites inventory fair housing analysis is on opportunities for low- and moderate- income housing. Opportunities for additional affordable housing are accommodated through high- density multi-family developments and ADUs. The sites inventory addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the community. Potential ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods. Through these parallel strategies, affordable housing choices for protected classes are expanded in all portions of Seal Beach. The candidate sties for rezoning identified in Table B-2 are not concentrated in low-resource areas or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Most of the sites are currently zoned commercial and developed with retail uses. The issue of displacement will be addressed through compliance with Government Code Sec. 65583.2(g)(3), included in Program 1e, which requires that for any proposed development on a site that has had residential uses within the past five years that are or were subject to lower-income affordability restrictions, or are or were subject to any other form of rent or price control, or are or were occupied by lower-income households, the City shall require the replacement of all affordable units at the same or lower income level as a condition of development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in Section 65915(c)(3). Section F.2 Public Participation Community outreach related to the Housing Element update is documented in Appendix E, Public Participation Summary. The City hosted two public Ad Hoc Committee Meetings and two City Council/Planning Commission study sessions in a virtual format. An online survey was published and received 14 responses. City residents and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to participate through the City’s website, and questions received through this platform are also documented in Appendix E. F.2.1 Issues Potentially Reducing Participation COVID-19 and in-person gathering restrictions significantly affected outreach capabilities and attendance related to the Housing Element Update. As the Ad Hoc meetings and study sessions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-3 were hosted virtually, the City experienced a decrease in participation over previous years. This decrease in participation was not only found with the Housing Element update process, but is a general trend observed across other community outreach efforts since March 2020. As Seal Beach is a city with an older demographic, the online-only space potentially reduces participation by creating challenges for older residents. Only 88.9% of households in Seal Beach have a computer (compared to 95.3% of households within Orange County), and 84.1% of households have a broadband Internet subscription. As nearly 40% of the Seal Beach population is over the age of 65, this discrepancy in Internet access is likely due to older population. Nevertheless, COVID-19 restrictions prevented in-person gatherings and the City was required to engage the community in a virtual space to protect the health and safety of the community.1 1 US Census Quickfacts, 2019. Section F.3 Assessment of Fair Housing F.3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity Orange County The City of Seal Beach is one of thirteen cites that participate in the Orange County Urban County Program, along with the County’s unincorporated areas. The Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (County AI) was adopted in June 2020 and “is a thorough examination of structural barriers to fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups protected from discrimination by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).”2 The County AI describes the departments and organizations that handle fair housing enforcement and outreach in Seal Beach. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination. The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) provides services to Seal Beach to ensure equal access to housing. The Council’s services include outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. The Fair Housing Council investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to DFEH. Community Legal Aid SoCal is a legal service provider serving low-income people in Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County. The 2020 Orange County AI reports that the FHCOC received 363 allegations of housing discrimination between 2015 and 2019 within the Urban County (which includes Seal Beach). Of those allegations, 179 cases were opened for further investigation and/or action. Also, FHCOC assisted 7,664 households in addressing 24,766 tenant/landlord issues, disputes and/or inquiries. The Urban County area has an approximate population of 545,000 and around 193,000 households. The number of fair housing cases and tenant/landlord issues addressed by FHCOC represents approximately 0.03 percent of the population and four percent of households in the Urban County area. The FHCOC also conducted a variety of outreach activities in the Urban County between 2015 and 2019. Regionally, the organization conducted or participated in 467 education and/or outreach activities. The FHCOC also held training sessions, seminars and workshops for managers and owners of rental property. Seal Beach City staff infrequently receives questions regarding fair housing issues. When needed, the City refers individuals with fair housing questions and/or potential issues to FHCOC. The FHEO 2 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Prepared by the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, May 5, 2020. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-5 Inquiries by City (HUD 2013-2021) provided through the HCD AFFH Data Viewer Tool indicated no inquiries were made within the city during this time. The City is proposing Programs 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d (Section 4, Housing Action Plan) to affirmatively further fair housing through FHCOC, providing fair housing and tenant and landlord counseling services. FHCOC would also be contracted to perform fair housing audits and investigate fair housing complaints. As outlined, Seal Beach has numerous procedures in place to address potential impediments to fair housing choice to persons with disabilities and other special needs populations. The City continues to contract through the County of Orange with the FHCOC to implement the regional Fair Housing Plan (AI) and offer fair housing services and tenant/landlord counseling to residents. The FHCOC did not identify any housing discrimination cases opened between 2014 and 2020 in Seal Beach. In addition to housing discrimination cases, the FHCOC has compiled data on landlord/tenant assistance provided in Seal Beach. Between 2014 and 2020, the Fair Housing Council assisted 142 households in addressing a total of 434 issues. The most prevalent issues included tenant notices (18%), rental agreements (18%), repairs/substandard conditions (17%), security deposits (6%) and reimbursements (5%). All of these issues were resolved without referral to other agencies or organizations. Similar to the Urban County, the percentage of households in Seal Beach that had fair housing complaints and landlord tenant issues was low (1% of households). However, it is important to see if certain households experience fair housing issues at a greater rate. The following table provides a breakdown of households assisted by housing type, ethnicity, income levels, age group and female-headed households as well as the percentage of these groups as part of Seal Beach’s total households. Table F-1: Landlord/Tenant Statistics in Seal Beach 2014-2020 Number of Households Assisted by FHCOC Percent of Total Households Assisted Percent of Total Seal Beach Households Housing Type Single Family Multi-Family Mobile Homes Other 51 83 2 6 36% 58% 1% 4% 43% 56% 1% Income Level Extremely Low Very Low Low 86 13 32 61% 9% 23% 20% 16% 19% Age Group Under 65 65 and over 124 18 87% 13% 42% 58% Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic African American Asian Other 108 18 2 2 5 76% 18% 1% 1% 4% 71% 9% 2% 11% 7% Female Headed HH 5 4% 6% Sources: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, September 2022; Dept. of Finance 2020 Population and Housing Estimates; HUD PD&R Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data As can be seen from the table, households in multi-family units and extremely low-income households appear to face housing issues at a greater rate than others in the City. Whites and Hispanics made up a higher percentage of the landlord/tenant complaints compared to their proportion of Seal Beach’s total population. It is interesting to note that while elderly households comprise 58% of households in the City, only 13% of the housing issues were attributed to this group. HUD’s records showed no fair housing cases in Seal Beach. As of April 2022, Seal Beach had five (5) Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). This means that .0003 percent of the City’s housing units are subsidized with vouchers. The Orange County 2020 AI stated that 2,286 HCVs were used for units in the County. This number makes up approximately one percent (1.04%) of the total housing units in the County. Seal Beach has one of the lowest numbers of HCVs in Orange County. The AI also states that HCV households are the most evenly distributed across racial/ethnic groups. In terms of geographic distribution of HCVs, the AI found that “Overall, publicly supported housing in the County is far more likely to be concentrated in the northernmost part, nearer to Los Angeles, than in the southern part. Developments are concentrated along the main thoroughfare of Highway 5, and are particularly Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-7 prevalent in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. It should be noted that there is a particularly high concentration of Housing Choice Voucher use in the Garden Grove-Westminster area, which does not seem to have a particularly high concentration of hard units of publicly supported housing. These areas correspond with areas of high Hispanic and Asian American or Pacific Islander segregation and concentration” (page 234). One of the five Seal Beach vouchers assists a disabled household; the other four assist elderly households. Organizational Capacity: The City of Seal Beach has very limited in-house capacity to investigate complaints and obtain remedies. The City will continue to contract through the County of Orange with the FHCOC for enforcement of fair housing and outreach. However, the City will take a more proactive role in understanding complaints and issues that arise in Seal Beach ; in distributing fair housing materials; and in ensuring landlords and tenants are familiar with fair housing regulations and the ways they can be enforced (Programs 5a and 5b). City Overview Much of the fair housing analysis is based on data provided at the census tract level. The jurisdiction includes a total of 10 census tracts. A few census tracts are not solely located within the City of Seal Beach and include portions in other jurisdictions. This includes Census Tracts 1100.07 and 1100.08 in the northern portion of Seal Beach. As a result, demographic information for these tracts also reflects neighboring communities, as well as Seal Beach. Some tracts include more land and households in the adjacent city than in Seal Beach, which therefore distorts and skews characteristics of the portion in Seal Beach. Figure F-1 depicts the census tracts that make up the City of Seal Beach. Throughout the analysis, few tracts repeatedly stand out with trends of higher levels of segregation and disproportionate need, including potential displacement risk. In the rare instances where census tract data shows concentrations of need, there is often an explanation associated with unique land uses within Seal Beach. An example would be the land uses at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach (located on Census Tract 995.02) and a 55+ age restricted retirement community called Leisure World (located on Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10). These specific land uses result in concentrations of specific demographics; data can indicate characteristics about both communities that require contextualization. Additionally, the NWS Seal Beach property on Census Tract 995.02 is significantly larger than most other census tracts in the region. The unusually large size of this area may visually distort how data is expressed without appropriate contextualization. Figure F-1: Census Tracts Source: United States Census Bureau, 2020 Census – Census Tract Reference Map. Leisure World is a Planned Unit Development (PUD), developed in the early 1960s as the first major planned retirement community in the United States. The majority of Leisure World is zoned RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Development), with small parcels zoned as SC (Service Commercial), PO (Professional Office), LM (Light Manufacturing) and RG (Recreation/Golf), all designed to support the residential uses. Leisure World is specifically not an assisted living facility, but units are designed to accommodate aging in place and the community includes other amenities that benefit senior citizens. Units are single-story, majority either one or two bedrooms in size. There are a few multi-story condominium structures (two to three stories) within Leisure World. However, the majority of units are ground level, single -story in the “garden style” with open access to shared greenbelts. Within Leisure World, smaller homeowner association style organizations called “mutuals” are responsible for maintenance and management. The Golden Rain Foundation (GRF) manages the Leisure World Trust property, which includes many on-site amenities: clubhouses, golf courses, pool, library, and streets. The GRF also is Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-9 responsible for programming. Amenities within Leisure World are limited to residents and their guests only and are not open to the public.12 NWS Seal Beach is a United States Navy installation for weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance, approximately 8.2 square miles in size (70% of land within Seal Beach). NWS Seal Beach was commissioned in 1944 at the height of World War II. The property was considered ideal due to the availability of open space and proximity to Navy fleet concentrations in Long Beach and San Diego. Since 1944, NWS Seal Beach has operated continuously and is now the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading and maintenance installation. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and medium-sized amphibious assault ships are loaded with missiles, torpedoes, countermeasure devices and conventional ammunition at the facility’s 850-foot long wharf. An average of 40 vessels are loaded or unloaded each year. It is estimated that 300 military and civilian employees work at NWS Seal Beach.3 In addition to the military uses, approximately 900 acres on-site are designated as the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Habitat types within the refuge include subtidal, intertidal, mudflat, coastal salt marsh and upland habitat. The refuge is key critical habitat for several threatened and endangered species. 4 As NWS Seal Beach is a federally owned military property, the City of Seal Beach does not have land use control or decision-making authority on the base. Additionally, NWS Seal Beach is exempt from land use decision-making from the California Coastal Commission. While the City maintains a positive and cooperative relationship with NWS Seal Beach and strives to maintain harmony in land uses, decisions on NWS Seal Beach remain within the purview of the federal government. As NWS Seal Beach accounts for approximately 70% of the land within the City of Seal Beach, the presence of this military installation is a unique consideration in regard to the Housing Element. F.3.2 Integration and Segregation Race and Ethnicity The racial and ethnic makeup of a jurisdiction is critical in analyzing housing demand and determining fair housing needs, as there is typically a nexus between racial/ethnic composition and other housing characteristics such as household size, mobility, and locational preferences. Figure F-2 depicts the racial and ethnic majority by census tract in Seal Beach. The entirety of the Seal Beach census tracts have a sizeable to predominant White majority. 13 U.S. Navy, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/nws_seal_beach.html, accessed December 16, 2021. 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge – California, https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal_beach/, accessed December 16, 2021. Figure F-2: Racial and Ethnic Majority Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-11 Figure F-3 and Figure F-4 display the percentage of the non-White population in 2010 and 2018 by census block group. From 2010 to 2018, the percentage of non-White residents in Seal Beach has increased across the city; in 2010 the majority of the City’s racial demographic was at most 40%, and in 2018 the demographic racial demographic was primarily 21-60%. There are higher percentages of non-White residents within Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located, and Census Tract 1100.12, which constitutes the eastern area of Seal Beach. An analysis determined that the HCD AFFH Data Viewer maps for 2010 and 2018 used different definitions of White and non-White populations. The 2010 map is based on the “2010 White Population) from the US Census, which included people who identified as Hispanic White. In contrast, the 2018 map included people who identified as Hispanic White in the total Hispanic and non-White populations. Because of the different data presentation in the 2010 and 2018 map, direct comparisons cannot be drawn. It is likely that the 2010 map shows less diversity than actually existed at the time. The 2018 map would be a more accurate reflection of diversity in the present day. Figure F-3: Percent of the Population that is non -White, 2010 Figure F-4 Percent of the Population that is non -White, 2018 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-13 According to the United State Census Bureau population estimates for 2019, Seal Beach has notably lower percentages of non-White racial and ethnic demographics when compared to Orange County (refer to Table F-2 and F-3, below). Specifically, Seal Beach has a population that is 9.1% Hispanic or Latino compared to 31.3% of Orange County, and 11.1% Asian population compared to 21.7% of Orange County. Additionally, the White alone, not Hispanic of Latino population of Seal Beach is 70.6% compared to 39.8% for Orange County.5 Table F-2: Race and Ethnicity, Seal Beach and Orange County (2019) Category Seal Beach (2019) Orange County (2019) Hispanic 9.1% 31.3% White (Non-Hispanic) 70.6% 39.8% Asian (Non-Hispanic) 11.1% 21.7% Black (Non-Hispanic) 2.3% 2.1% American Indian or Alaska Native (non- Hispanic) 0.3% 1.0% All Other (Non-Hispanic) 0.3% 0.4% Two or More Races 4.4% 3.6% Source: United State Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Seal Beach city, California; Orange County, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sealbeachcitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST0 45219, accessed December 7, 2021. Table F-3: Race and Ethnicity, Seal Beach and Orange County (2010) Category Seal Beach (2010) Orange County (2010) Hispanic (any race) 10% 34% White (Non-Hispanic) 77% 44% Asian (Non-Hispanic) 9% 18% Black (Non-Hispanic) 1% 1% American Indian or Alaska Native (non- Hispanic) 0.2% 0.2% All Other or 2+ Races (Non-Hispanic) 3% 3% Source: City of Seal Beach, 2013 – 2021 Housing Element, October 14, 2013. 15 United State Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Seal Beach city, California; Orange County, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sealbeachcitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST045219, accessed December 7, 2021. One metric used to quantify segregation is the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index measures how evenly two groups are distributed throughout a sub-area (block group) of a larger area (city) using a number between one and one hundred. The index score reflects the percentage of a group’s population that would have to change residence for each neighborhood (block group) to have the same percentage of that group across all neighborhoods in the city. The formula provided in HCD’s AFFH Handbook was used to generate this calculation. The categories for a dissimilarity index (shown as percentages) as defined by HCD are as follows: • < 30: Low Segregation • 30 – 60: Moderate Segregation • > 60: High Segregation The indices for the City of Seal Beach are shown in Table F-4, below. They reveal the most significant segregation index value exists between the black/white populations, at 35.72 or defined as moderate segregation. The remainder of index values between the other racial/ethnic groups remain in the low segregation category. Seal Beach shows more integration when compared to Orange County on a regional scale; however, this could be attributed to the racial homogeneity of Seal Beach also affecting low dissimilarity index. Table F-4: Dissimilarity Index Values Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index Seal Beach (2020) Orange County (2020) Non-White/White 10.56 44.71 Black/White 35.72 46.98 Hispanic/White 16.70 52.82 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 26.08 43.19 Source: Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-15 Income Figure F-5 depicts the percentage of people in each census block that are of low to moderate incomes. Six block groups show more than 75% of the population is low to moderate income. This congregation of low to moderate income households are concentrated within Leisure World Seal Beach, a retirement community in the northwestern portion of the city (Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10). Census Tract 995.04 and block groups 995.11.1, 1100.07.2, 1100.08.2, 1100.12.1, and 1100.12.3 have the lowest percentages of low-moderate income population with less than 25% of the population being low-moderate income. Figure F-5: Low to Moderate Income Populations Figure F-6 and Figure F-7 depict the percentage of households with incomes below the federal poverty level from 2010-2014 and 2015-2019, respectively. From 2010-2014, only two census tracts had 10-20% of the populations below the federal poverty level. The remaining tracts show fewer than 10% of the population below the federal poverty level. By 2015-2019, all census tracts in Seal Beach show fewer than 10% of households below the federal poverty level. The higher percentage of households below the federal poverty level between 2010 and 2014 may be due to residual economic effects of the Great Recession of 2008. This could explain why the AFFH data viewer does not show concentrations of households below the federal poverty level for data collected between 2015 and 2019. Figure F-6: Poverty Status, 2010 - 2014 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-17 Figure F-7: Poverty Status, 2015 - 2019 Figure F-8 depicts median income between 2010 and 2014 as greater than $80,000, with the exception of Leisure World, which had a median income less than $40,000. Concentrations of households within central Seal Beach and north of I-405 show households with incomes greater than $100,000. Household income data was broken into greater detail in the median income map from 2015 to 2019, Figure F-9. The entirety of Leisure World as well as NWS Seal Beach and one coastal block group (where the manufactured/mobile home park is located) shows a median income below the 2020 state median income of $87,100. Similar concentrations of households within central Seal Beach and north of I-405 show high income households. Median household income was generated from neighboring cities and Orange County, to provide context for a regional income comparison. Median income in Seal Beach is significantly lower than the County, at $68,852 compared to $90,234 respectively. Median income in Seal Beach is more comparable to neighboring cities of Long Beach, Garden Grove and Westminster. Median income in Seal Beach may be lower than the County wide median because of the high concentration of older adults and retirees. Table F-5: Median Income Jurisdiction Median Household Income City of Seal Beach $68,852 County of Orange $90,234 City of Long Beach $63,017 City of Los Alamitos $88,729 City of Garden Grove $69,278 City of Westminster $62,625 City of Huntington Beach $95,046 Source: US Census Bureau, Median Household Income Quickfacts (2019), accessed December 16, 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-19 Figure F-8: Median Income, 2010 - 2014 Figure F-9: Median Income, 2015 - 2019 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-21 The Housing Choice Voucher Program is the federal program for assisting very low-income, elderly, and disabled families and individuals in affording decent housing by subsidizing rent costs and paying landlords directly for a portion of the rent. Eligibility is based on family size and whether income is less than 50% of the area’s median income. Figure F-10 shows no data for housing choice vouchers within Seal Beach. However, further research into the Orange County Housing Choice Voucher Program identified that as of October 2021, Seal Beach has a total of five housing choice vouchers, one for disabled persons and four for elderly persons.6 16It is possible that because the number of housing choice vouchers used in Seal Beach is low, the AFFH Data Viewer did not display these housing choice vouchers on the map below. Figure F-10: Location of Housing Choice Vouchers 16Orange County Community Resources, Cities Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda & Summary , dated October 27, 2021. Familial Status Figure F-11 and Figure F-12 show the percentage of adults living with their spouse and adults living alone, respectively, within each census tract. The most common household type within the city is a single adult, living alone; refer to Section A.3.1. The high share of single-person households is likely due to the concentration of adults living alone within Leisure World, where only 20 to 40% of the population within these census tracts lives with a spouse. The highest concentration of households living with a spouse is located on NWS Seal Beach, likely due to the prevalence of family units for service members stationed on the naval base. Visually, this data is skewed by the unusually large size of Census Tract 995.02. While this area shows a high concentration of adults living with a spouse, a small number of families live on the navy property (approximately 130 rental households). Figure F-11: Adults Living with Spouse Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-23 Figure F-12: Adults Living Alone Figure F-13 shows the percentage of children in married-couple households by census tract throughout Seal Beach. There is no data for children in married-couple households for Leisure World because it is an age-restricted 55+ community, where children are not permitted to permanently reside. Aside from Leisure World, the entirety of Seal Beach has a population of children in married-couple households greater than 40% with the majority being greater than 80%. Figure F-13: Children in Married Couple Households Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-25 Figure F-14 shows the percentage of children in female-headed households by census tract in Seal Beach. Only two tracts in Seal Beach, Census Tracts 995.11 and 995.12, have 20-40% of children in female-headed households. The remainder of the city falls into the lowest category with fewer than 20% of children in female-headed households. It is estimated that female-headed households in Seal Beach make up only 6% of households, and of those only 1.8% are female- headed households with children. This is significantly lower than regional statistics; it is estimated that about 16% of households in Orange County are female single parent households. Approximately 20% of households in Orange County are single-parent households with children. For more information on female-headed households in Seal Beach refer to Section A.3.3, Special Needs. Figure F-14: Children in Female -Headed Households Persons with Disabilities The US Census considers a person disabled if they are reported as having a hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living difficulty. Developmental disabilities, as defined by federal law, are not recorded by the US Census. The two census tracts that make up Leisure World, Census Tract 995.09 and 995.10, have the highest percentage of the population with a disability in Seal Beach. In both the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 data sets, the population with a disability in Leisure World was between 30-40%. From 2010-2014 the majority of the city had populations of individuals with a disability of either 10-20% or less than 10%; from 2014-2019, the entirety of the City’s population excluding Leisure World had less than 10% of the population with a disability. The significantly higher population of individuals with a disability in Leisure World is likely due to the concentration of elderly population as an age-restricted 55+ community. Compared to Orange County, the high percentage and concentration of persons with disabilities in Seal Beach is regionally unique. Countywide, an estimated 8.5% of the population reports a disability. In Seal Beach, over 17% of the civilian/noninstitutionalized population reports a disability. 717 Disabled persons often have special housing needs due to their disability, which may lead to compounding issues of low income, high health care costs, or dependency on supportive services or special building accommodations. Considering the higher concentration area of disabled persons is a 55+ community, it is clear that housing stock in Leisure World provides certain accommodations to offset the housing burdens of disabled residents. Housing stock within these census tracts primarily include smaller single-story units, usually one to two bedrooms in size. Amenities associated with this community include bus services, on-site pharmacy, on-site post office, and programming designed for individuals aged 55+. It should be noted that Leisure World is specifically not an assisted living community. For more information on persons with disabilities refer to Section A.3.3, Special Needs. 17American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Seal Beach S1810 Disability Characteristics. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-27 Figure F -15: Percentage of the Population with a Disability, 2010 - 2014 Figure F -16: Percentage of the Population with a Disability, 2015 - 2019 Findings: Integration and Segregation Overall, there is no concentration of non-White populations within the city. Generally, diverse racial and ethnic populations in Seal Beach are significantly lower when compared to Orange County on the regional scale. While no census tracts show more than 10% of the population below the federal poverty level from 2015-2019, there exist low to moderate income populations mirroring the areas of lowest median income levels, primarily in Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. The areas of low to moderate income populations in Leisure World also coincide with the highest populations of adults living alone and populations living with a disability. Leisure World being an age-restricted 55+ retirement community explains this concentration of low-income adults living alone with a disability, as those metrics generally reflect an elderly population. Familial trends indicate relatively high populations of married couples with children throughout the city, outside of Leisure World. These analyses do not indicate significant levels of segregation based on racial, ethnic, familial, or disabled components of the population. Seal Beach is an older city, incorporated in 1915 with subdivisions in the community dating back to the late 1800s. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of racial or ethnic segregation within the city on a neighborhood or sub-neighborhood basis, Seal Beach remains a predominately white community. It is unknown if exclusionary zoning or real estate practices happened within Seal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-29 Beach. However, Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) created “Residential Security” maps of major American cities, including the neighboring City of Long Beach adjacent to Seal Beach. HOLC maps assigned color-coded grades to residential neighborhoods that reflected “mortgage security”. Neighborhoods receiving green, or “Best,” were deemed minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders. Neighborhoods receiving red were considered “hazardous.” Neighborhoods that were redlined were often lower-income, multi-family units, housing immigrants or persons of color. Redlining directed public and private capital to native-born white families and away from Black and immigrant families. Neighborhoods in Naples, Belmont Shore and Belmont Heights were mapped blue, as “Still Desirable.” HOLC described the neighborhoods by: “deed restrictions vary in different subdivisions, but all are said to protect against racial hazards.”8 18 HOLC maps were not prepared for Seal Beach. However, because of the prevalence of exclusionary zoning prior to the 1960s within the region of Los Angeles and Orange County, it is possible that these historical practices still have lingering effects in the demographics of the City into the present time. Additional affordable units within Seal Beach would likely increase racial and ethnic diversity of the community, along with inviting households of different sizes. F.3.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) A R/ECAP is an area with a non-White population over 50% and with over 40% of the median household incomes below the poverty level. According to the HCD AFFH Mapping Tool, there are only six census tracts identified as R/ECAPS in Orange County, three of which are in Santa Ana and three of which are in Irvine. There are no areas in Seal Beach with over 40% of the median household income below the poverty level (Figures F-6 and F-7), thus there are no R/ECAPs in the City of Seal Beach as depicted in Figure F-17. 18University of Richmond, Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/, accessed December 11, 2021. Figure F-17: RECAPs Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA) According to HCD, an RCAA is an area with a White population over 80% and a median household income level over $125,000. By these metrics and as illustrated in Figure F-18 and Figure F-19, Seal Beach has one RCAA in Census Block Group 995.12.3. Two Seal Beach census block groups are less than 20% non-White, one in Leisure World and another in Census Block Group 995.12.3. The block group in Leisure World does not have a median income over $125,000, and thus is not considered a RCAA. However, Block Group 995.12.3 had a median income of $161,000 between 2015 and 2019 and is a RCAA. One candidate site for rezoning is located within this identified RCAA (99 Marina); the findings section below discusses this site in further detail. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-31 Figure F-18: Percent Non-White Figure F-19: Median Income Findings: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations defined as R/ECAPs in Seal Beach. Conversely, there exists one identified Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA). Census Block Group 995.12.3 has a White population greater than 80% and the median household income above $125,000. Development in this area that would allow for lower-income housing has substantial barriers including space availability constraints and California Coastal Commission restraints. For more information on development restraints refer to Appendix C. There is one vacant site located within this census block group at 99 Marina Drive, 4.3 acres in size. 99 Marina Drive is identified as a candidate site for rezoning; the current general plan and zoning is listed as OE (Oil Extraction). Program 1a proposes to rezone 99 Marina Drive to RHD- 33 (High-Density Residential), which includes a maximum density of 33 dwelling units/acre. The City conservatively assumes that only 3 acres of the site would be built here, at 70 percent of the total maximum capacity, yielding 69 units. While the City identifies this site as affordable to above- moderate income households in its sites inventory, the increase in allowable density over 30 dwelling units per acre is anticipated to promote affordability. Furthermore, given development trends in the region, particularly in neighboring Long Beach, it is possible that a developer would utilize a density bonus, thereby providing at least some affordable units. This could allow diverse Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-33 households to take advantage of the high opportunity offered by the RCAA in this census block group. While this site is vacant, historical uses included an oil separation and refinery facility ; however, oil extraction at this site ceased some time ago, and the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquiries received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense, and is generally expected by the community. Moreover, the Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element does not identify any significant effect related to environmental contamination or hazardous materials at this site. See Appendix B for more information. F.3.4 Access to Opportunity CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a tool that identifies communities in California that are affected by pollutants and polluting factors such as ozone, particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, lead, toxins, diesel particulates, traffic density, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, solid waste, and impaired water bodies. This database also measures population factors such as cardiovascular disease, asthma rates, educational attainment, poverty, linguistic isolation, and more. A higher score indicates a higher effect of pollutants on the indicated area. The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentiles are shown in Figure F-20. The majority of the city includes low scoring census tracts, indicating no or few environmental burdens on the community. The highest pollution burden is shown on Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located. The CalEnviroScreen percentile score is listed at 67.63. Navy operations (including weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance) have been conducted on this property dating back to 1944 and likely contributes to a higher percentile score compared to neighboring census tracts. While this tract is showing lower environmental scores, it is also home to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing 965 acres of coastal wetlands. In addition, Census Tract 995.02 is significantly larger than neighboring census tracts, creating higher exposure and potentially contributing to the higher than usual score. The remainder of the city census tracts received scores under 45. The second highest scoring census tracts include 995.09 and 995.10 (Leisure World), where housing is limited to individuals aged 55 or older. Lower incomes combined with the proximity to I-405 could be contributing to a higher percentile score. Census tracts north of the I-405 experience similar pollution burden from the freeway but have scores ranging from 26 to 38. The City will be preparing an Environmental Justice Element, where communities of focus will be identified and prioritized. Policies will be designed to address higher CalEnviroScreen scores within specific census tracts. Figure F-20: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-35 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC) Opportunity Area scores can be used as a tool to analyze disparities in access to opportunities. This tool was prepared by TCAC and HCD to identify areas statewide whose economic, educational, and environmental characteristics support positive outcomes for low-income families. Opportunity maps are updated annually and provide a separate economic score, environmental score, and educational score. Each score is compiled using several indicators, and the composite map combines all three designations to provide a single score for each block group. The top 20% of overall scores in a county are labeled as highest resource and the next 20% of scores are labeled as high resource. Any areas that are considered segregated and that have at least 30% of the population living below the federal poverty line are labeled as an area of High Segregation and Poverty. Remaining uncategorized areas in the county are evenly divided between moderate resource and low resource areas. Figure F-21 shows the economic scores for Seal Beach by census tract. The economic indicators used include poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The map shows a stark contrast as the entirety of the city is categorized as either above 0.75 (the more positive economic outcome) or below 0.25 (the less positive economic outcome). The areas that have scored below 0.25 include Leisure World and the NWS Seal Beach, which coincide with areas of lower income seen in Figure F-5, Figure F-6, and Figure F-7. The remainder of the city scored among the more positive economic outcomes. TCAC economic scores for Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach may not be representative of actual conditions, due to the unique populations, demographics, employment, and land uses concentrated within these census tracts. Leisure World residents are aged 55+, and typically consist of retirees who are not currently employed. Median home values in this part of the City are lower than other neighborhoods because of the age restriction. Leisure World does not necessarily represent a community with poor economic outcomes, but the congregation of one specific demographic group with unique needs. Similarly, NWS Seal Beach is a federally owned naval property where there are no owner-occupied housing units. Further, the census tract is considered unusually large for the region. Employment in this census tract is limited to the military uses occurring on-site. The unique circumstances within this census tract do not necessarily reflect a community with poor economic outcomes when the specific land use is considered. Figure F-21: TCAC Economic Score, 2021 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-37 The environmental domain is determined using CalEnviroScreen pollution indicators and values; the TCAC Environmental Scores mirror the environmental concerns depicted in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 map above, Figure F-21. Figure F-22 shows the TCAC Environmental Score for Seal Beach by census tract. The map indicates stratified environmental scores throughout the city with the more positive environmental scores being along the western coastal area, and the remainder of the city having scored from 0.75 to below 0.25. The areas with the less positive environmental scores include the more inland reaches of the city, Leisure World, and the NWS Seal Beach. Similar to the potential sources of environmental concerns discussed above, naval operations, proximity to the I-405 freeway, and heavy industrial uses along the San Gabriel River, may be responsible for the lower environmental scores in these areas. Figure F-22: TCAC Environmental Score, 2021 Education indicators include math and reading proficiencies in fourth grade, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. Figure F-23 shows the education scores for the city by census tract. The majority of the City’s education scores are above 0.75, the more positive education outcomes. Census Tract 1100.12 is within the 0.50-0.75 range and some census tracts show no data. There are no public schools in Census Tract 1100.12 which may be negatively impacting the education score compared to the rest of Seal Beach. Seal Beach is served by one public school district, Los Alamitos Unified, for grades K through 12. Elementary schools within this district are very highly rated on Great Schools, receiving scores between 8 – 10 out of 10. Both middle schools and the high school are rated 8 – 9 out of 10. As the public school system demonstrates strong outcomes and is highly rated, high access to educational opportunity is available within the city. 919 Figure F-23: TCAC Education Score, 2021 19Great Schools, Los Alamitos Unified School District, https://www.greatschools.org/california/seal-beach/, accessed December 16, 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-39 Figure F-24 displays the TCAC Composite Scores and Resource Category for each census tract in the city. The resource categories across the city range from moderate resource to highest resource, with the highest resource areas being the coastal, western, and northwestern census tracts. The moderate resource category areas include Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. Table F-6 shows the individual domain scores of each census tract including the economic, environmental, and education scores, as well as the composite index score and resource category. Based on the individual factors, the economic and environmental outcomes seem to be the most influential in driving down the composite scores of Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. No areas of the city are categorized as low resource or high segregation and poverty. Figure F-24: TCAC Composite Score, 2021 Table F-6: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization Census Tract Economic Domain Score Environmental Domain Score Education Domain Score Composite Index Score Final Category 995.02 0.22 0.10 0.89 0.05 Moderate Resource 995.04 0.97 0.26 0.85 0.54 Highest Resource 995.06 0.95 0.62 0.81 0.60 Highest Resource 995.09 0.01 0.10 - -0.04 Moderate Resource 995.10 0.02 0.38 0.92 0.01 Moderate Resource 995.11 0.97 0.80 0.85 0.70 Highest Resource 995.12 0.97 0.74 0.85 0.69 Highest Resource 1100.12 0.92 0.09 0.72 0.30 High Resource 1100.07* 0.75 0.15 - 0.42 Highest Resource 1100.08* 0.95 0.29 - 0.65 Highest Resource * Census tracts are not solely located within the City of Seal Beach and include portions in other jurisdictions Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas (2021) – Composite Score – Tract. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-41 Access to Opportunities Regional Comparison Generally, Seal Beach has notably greater access to opportunities when compared to Orange County. Table F-7 displays various indicators that show the opportunities available to Seal Beach citizens compared to those of Orange County. The population below the federal poverty level in the City (5.7%) is significantly less than in the County (9.4%), indicating that economic opportunities are more available in the City than in the surrounding region. Education indicators show that while the city has a lower percent of the population enrolled in K-12 education, which may be attributed to the high percentage of seniors living in the City. However, the number of Seal Beach citizens with a bachelor’s degree or higher is 8% greater than in the County. Table F-7: Access to Opportunity Indicators – City and County Indicator Seal Beach Orange County Population below Federal Poverty Level 5.7% 9.4% Education Bachelor's Degree or Higher 49.0% 41.0% School Enrolled Population Enrolled in Kindergarten to 12th Grade 56.4% 60.3% Unemployment Rate 6.7% 4.7% Source: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Transportation Access to adequate transportation and a variety of transit options can help lower disparities in access to opportunities. Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) is the provider for the City of Seal Beach and the surrounding communities. The city has three OCTA bus routes: Route 1, Route 42, and Route 60. Additionally, there are two Long Beach Transit Bus Routes that operate within the city, Route 131, and Route 171. Transit routes and transit stops are shown in Figure F-25 below. The Orange County AI utilized two transportation indicators to help analyze disparities in access to opportunities. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation and the low transportation cost index measures the cost of transportation and proximity to transportation by neighborhood. The AI found no significant disparities between racial and ethnic groups in the low transportation cost index and found that transit index scores do not vary significantly by race or ethnic group in most areas across Orange County. Access to public transportation in Seal Beach is similar and comparable to neighboring cities, and the greater Orange County region. Further, Walk Score demonstrates that the Main Beach/Old Town neighborhood in Seal Beach is “very walkable” with a score of 85. This score indicates that most errands can be accomplished on foot.1020 Figure F-25: Transit Routes Findings: Disparities in Access to Opportunities Overall, Seal Beach is identified as moderate to highest resource, with no areas of low resource and no areas of high segregation and poverty. The most significant factors impacting TCAC opportunity area scores are economic and environmental, which primarily affect Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. Environmental issues are most apparent when analyzing CalEnviroScreen 4.0 data. As previously discussed, low environmental scores are likely the result of existing naval operations, proximity to the I-405 freeway, and heavy industrial uses along the San Gabriel River. The City will be preparing an Environmental Justice Element including goals and policies to address these concerns. Access to transportation does not disproportionately affect racial and ethnic groups within the city and is not a barrier to opportunities in Seal Beach. 20 Walk Score, Main Street/Old Town Seal Beach, https://www.walkscore.com/score/129-main-st-seal-beach-ca-90740, accessed December 16, 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-43 Generally, Seal Beach is a high resource city with access to strong educational and economic outcomes. Affordable housing units would allow more households to enjoy access to high resources found within the city. As the data does not indicate a specific disparity to access within the city, it is assumed the key barrier to opportunity for housing in Seal Beach is affordability. Increasing affordable units for a variety of household types would allow for high opportunity within the community to be expanded. F.3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate housing needs are determined by comparing substandard housing or housing problems in relation to tenure, race, household size, or household age. A household is considered substandard or having a housing problem if it has one or more of the following housing problems: • Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities • Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities • Housing unit is overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) • Household is cost burdened (greater than 30%) A household is considered to have a severe housing problem if it has one or more of the following housing problems: • Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities • Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities • Housing unit is overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) • Household is cost burdened (greater than 50%) Table F-8: Substandard Housing in Seal Beach by Tenure Owner Renter Total Total Households 9,505 2,995 12,500 Household has at least 1 of 4 Housing Problems 2,075 22% 1,315 44% 3,390 27% Household has at least 1 of 4 Severe Housing Problems 1,100 12% 605 20% 1,705 14% Total Households with Cost Burden 1,985 21% 1,235 41% 3,220 26% Household Housing Cost Burden >30% to <=50% 1,005 11% 730 24% 1,735 14% Household Housing Cost Burden >50% 980 10% 505 17% 1,485 12% Source: HUD CHAS Data 2014-2018 Cost burdens and substandard housing significantly affects renters over owners within the city, with 41% of renters experience cost burden and 44% of renters experiencing at least one of four housing problems as defined by HUD. Comparatively, only 21% of owners experience cost burden and 22% of owners experience at least one of four housing problems as defined by HUD. Across the City, approximately one quarter of households experience cost burden and at least one of the four housing problems. Based on Figure F-26 below, a small percentage of units in the City lack complete plumbing facilities (0.28%) or lack complete kitchen facilities (0.98%). Generally, cost burden affects households more significantly compared to physical deficiencies associated with units. Figure F-26: Substandard Housing in Seal Beach Cost burden is shown to be concentrated in Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located. Housing units on this property are owned by the federal government, and NWS Seal Beach contracts with Lincoln Military Housing (a private company) for property management. Units range from family housing (including both two-bedroom units and four-bedroom units) and unaccompanied housing (formerly Bachelor Housing, also referred to as the barracks). As units within Census Tract 995.02 are limited to service members, this cost burden is uniquely placed on a specific subgroup of residents in Seal Beach. The ACS 2015 – 2019 data compared to ACS 2010 – 2014 is showing an increased rental burden on this specific census tract. Census Tract 995.09, 995.10 and 995.04 show the lowest concentration of overpayment for renting. An increase in rental burden on Census Tract 995.09 has occurred, when comparing ACS 2010 – 2014 data to ACS 2015 – 2019 data. This particular census tract is located within Leisure World, a 55+ community where older retirees live. The change in rental burden in this location may be associated with the unique demographics of the neighborhood. Rental burden has decreased on the census tracts located north of I-405 and has remained about the same on waterfront census tracts in downtown Seal Beach. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-45 Overpayment burden by homeowners is not specifically concentrated in one geographic location and is distributed between the 20% - 40% and 40% - 60% categories throughout Seal Beach. No data is shown on Census Tract 995.02, as there are no owner-occupied units located on the NWS Seal Beach. Compared to ACS 2010 – 2014, the overpayment burden on Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10 has decreased significantly. As previously discussed, these census tracts consist of a 55+ community. Overpayment on owner occupied units may have been a result of economic conditions associated with the Great Recession, affecting fixed-income seniors more significantly than other demographic groups. Figure F-27: Overpayment by Owners, 2010 - 2014 Figure F-28: Overpayment by Owners, 2015 - 2019 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-47 Figure F-29: Overpayment by Renters, 2010 - 2014 Figure F-30: Overpayment by Renters, 2015 - 2019 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-49 Overcrowding A household is considered overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, including living and dining rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 occupants per room. Approximately 1.1% of owner-occupied units are considered overcrowded, and 2.3% of renter- occupied units are overcrowded. This is low in comparison with surrounding areas, and significantly lower than the state average of 8.2%. Both the state and County experience overcrowding at a higher rate than Seal Beach. Further, no specific neighborhood or census block demonstrates a concentrated area of overcrowding within the city. Seal Beach has a small Black and Asian American population, both of which experience overcrowding at higher rates compared to White households within the city. While White households have the highest number of overcrowding incidents (143 households), overcrowding only affects 1.3% of White households. In comparison, 2.1% of the 233 Black households and 5.0% of Asian American households in Seal Beach experience overcrowding. Table F-9: Overcrowded Households by Race White Black Native American Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Asian American Some Other Race (alone) Two or More Races Total 10,411 233 43 61 1,323 181 290 1.0 less per room 10,268 228 43 61 1,256 181 290 1.01 or more per room 143 5 0 0 67 0 0 Source: HUD CHA Data Viewer, 2014 – 2018. Figure F-31: Overcrowded Households Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-51 Homelessness The homeless population is a group that has disproportionately higher needs than those who are housed. The Orange County Partnership conducted the 2019 Point in Time Count (PITC), which counts the unsheltered homeless population County-wide over two nights in January. Table F-10 below shows the PITC for the Central Service Planning Area, which includes Seal Beach and neighboring jurisdictions. The city had eight unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. There is no spatial data as to where specific homeless individuals are located or congregate. Homeless individuals within Seal Beach tend to be transient in nature, making such spatial analysis difficult to prepare or procure. Table F-10: Regional Point in Time Count, Central Service Planning Area City Unsheltered Sheltered Total Costa Mesa 187 6 193 Fountain Valley 28 14 42 Garden Grove 163 62 225 Huntington Beach 289 60 349 Newport Beach 64 0 64 Santa Ana 830 939 1,769 Seal Beach 8 0 8 Tustin 95 264 359 Westminster 159 25 184 County Unincorporated 4 31 35 Domestic Violence Programs N/A 104 104 Central Service Planning Area 1,827 1,505 3,332 Source: Orange County, Everyone Counts 2019 Point in Time Count. The previous Seal Beach Housing Element estimated approximately ten unsheltered homeless individuals. While homelessness across Orange County has risen since 2012, the total number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Seal Beach has remained the same. Table F-11: Homelessness Trends and Comparison, 2012 and 2019 Year Seal Beach Orange County 2012 10* 4,251 2019 8 6,760 *estimate from the previous Housing Element Source: Orange County, Everyone Counts 2012 and 2019 PITC. Displacement The Urban Displacement Project at University of California, Berkeley developed a map of communities where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing cost; these are known as sensitive communities. Sensitive communities are defined based on the following set of criteria: • The share of very low-income residents is above 20%. The tract must also meet two of the following criteria: • The share of renters is above 40%. • The share of people of color is above 50%. • The share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened is above the county median. • They or the areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as: o The percentage change in rent above county median for rent increases OR o The difference between tract median rent and tract median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap). Figure F-32 below does not identify any communities within Seal Beach as vulnerable to displacement. While there may be incidents of displacement or vulnerability to displacement on the individual/household level, displacement within Seal Beach is not generally clustered within a specific geographical area. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-53 Figure F-32: Households with Increased Displacement Risk Sea level rise may be a significant driver of displacement in the future. The City of Seal Beach Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis identifies significant portions of the city at risk to a variety of sea level rise scenarios. The science regarding sea level rise modeling continues to evolve; however, it is generally agreed upon that the 1.6-foot SLR scenario has a 66% probability of occurring by 2100. Under this scenario, significant sea level rise and storm flooding is projected to impact the Main Beach/Old Town neighborhood (downtown Seal Beach) and NWS Seal Beach property. Low- lying portions of the city are at the highest risk to inundation. Refer to Figure F-33, below. Additionally, some properties within Seal Beach are deed restricted from Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit (CDP) conditions of approval. Deed restrictions require property owners to waive their right to future shoreline protective devices, meaning that hardline structures such as sea walls or revetments will not be permitted to protect the property from sea level rise in the future. Because Coastal Commission has limited adaptation methods available to property owners, residential loss and displacement may occur within the coastal communities of Seal Beach. Sea level rise is a slow-moving natural hazard, and as impacts materialize within Seal Beach, additional adaptation/mitigation actions may become available. It is not anticipated that sea level rise or flooding is a significant displacement risk during this Housing Element cycle but may become a consideration in the future. Figure F-33: Seal Beach Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Findings: Disproportionate Housing Needs The analysis of disproportionate housing needs shows similar trends to the integration and segregation analysis. Generally, overpayment and cost burden are the most significant problem affecting households within Seal Beach. Overpayment disproportionately affects renter households within the city when compared to owner households. The high cost of housing in Seal Beach and other coastal Orange County communities significantly contributes to overpayment. Policies and programs within Section 4 are designed to assist with expanding affordable housing stock (Programs 1a, 1b, 1c, 1f, 1i, 1j, 1k, 1l, 1p, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5c); refer to Section 4, Housing Action Plan. Additional units for low and moderate incomes would allow for diverse households to take advantage of high economic and educational opportunities within Seal Beach. Although overcrowding in Seal Beach is below the statewide average, only 1.3% of White households experience overcrowding, compared to 2.1% of Black households and 5.0% of Asian American households. It can be reasonably assumed that overcrowding is associated with housing overpayment and cost burden. Diversity in housing stock is key to alleviating issues of overcrowding, ensuring low to moderate income units are sized to facilitate larger households. Homelessness and increased displacement risk do not present significant concerns related to disproportionate housing needs in the city within this Housing Element cycle. The upcoming Environmental Justice Element for Seal Beach will include goals and policies to address other disproportionate housing needs. As the Environmental Justice section has not yet been prepared, there are no specific details available to add to the Housing Element. Such information would be included in the next Housing Element update cycle, as appropriate. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-55 F.3.6 Other Relevant Factors Historic Land Use Practices As previously mentioned, the racial demographics of Seal Beach are fairly homogenous, and this may be associated with historic land use practices within northern coastal Orange County and Long Beach areas. As Seal Beach incorporated in 1915, with subdivisions dating back to the 1800s and known exclusionary zoning/real estate practices occurred within the neighboring jurisdictions including Long Beach, it is reasonable to believe similar practices occurred in Seal Beach. Because of the prevalence of exclusionary zoning prior to the 1960s within this region of Los Angeles and Orange County, it is possible that these historical practices still have lingering effects in the demographics of the city into the present time. Additional affordable units within Seal Beach would likely increase racial and ethnic diversity, along with inviting households of different sizes. Mobile/Manufactured Homes Seal Beach has one mobile home park located within the city, which makes up about 1.1% of the housing stock in the city (155 units). While the community is frequently labeled a mobile home park, a more accurate description would be manufactured housing. The location of the neighborhood is shown on Figure F-34, northwest of 1st Street and adjacent to the San Gabriel River. The Seal Beach Municipal Code considered manufactured housing (but not mobile homes) to be defined as a single unit dwelling. The Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance regulates development projects that propose changing the use of mobile home parks. The previous Housing Element documented the preservation/conservation of these units as affordable; 25 units for low income and 75 units for moderate income households. Figure F-34: Location of Mobile Home Parks Community Opposition to Housing In the past, housing projects have been withdrawn and applicants dissuaded from proceeding through the approval process from the threat of lawsuit. City residents have also expressed opposition to housing at the Shops at Rossmoor and Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd). The City has no control or influence on whether someone will threaten or bring a lawsuit against a project, or how the applicant will respond to the threat, regardless of if there is a valid legal basis for a challenge. Seal Beach carefully follows the CEQA process to ensure all documentation is compliant, legally sound, and defensible. However, negative community responses to land-use changes may detrimentally affect lower- and moderate-income residents, as new multi-family housing stock is more difficult and expensive to produce. Restricted Housing Units Unique land uses within Seal Beach restrict housing opportunities to specific age groups or employment groups, thus limiting housing choices. As previously mentioned, all units within Leisure World are age restricted to individuals aged 55 or older. Additional housing development within this neighborhood would continue to be age restricted, thus limiting housing choice for Seal Beach residents. Housing units on NWS Seal Beach are also limited to active service members Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-57 employed on-site. Additional units on NWS Seal Beach would also be restricted to service members employed on-site, unless a land lease agreement with the US Navy allows for housing to be non-restricted. Such a decision is at the discretion of the federal government and not guaranteed. Both of these land uses limit the availability of housing units within the city. F.3.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues The four most-pressing fair housing issues in Seal Beach are the following: 1. The primary fair housing issue in Seal Beach is disproportionate housing needs, meaning certain groups experience housing challenges (like cost-burden and overpayment) at a greater rate than other groups, because it affects the most residents and protected classes. In Seal Beach, tenants and lower-income households are the most cost-burdened. The contributing factor to this primary issue is the availability of affordable units in a range of sizes. High rates of overpayment and disproportionate rates of overcrowding indicate the need for more affordable housing, which could be provided through smaller unit sizes and a mix of housing types. 2. The second fair housing issue is also disproportionate housing needs due to land use and zoning laws. High parking ratios for smaller units and California Coastal Commission review of residential act as impediments to the development of housing. 3. The third fair housing issue is segregation and integration because of community opposition to building denser, more affordable housing in the City. Public comment received during the Housing Element process included opposition to multi-family housing, and in the past, housing projects have been withdrawn and applicants dissuaded from proceeding through the approval process from the threat of lawsuit. 4. The fourth fair housing issue is also segregation and integration due to the contributing factor of location and type of affordable housing, as clearly demonstrated by public comments throughout the Housing Element process. Comments identified that the availability of affordable housing is a critical issue, and housing affordable to low and moderate-income households and families, is needed. New residential development throughout Seal Beach would provide housing in high and highest resources areas. Seal Beach is a non-entitlement city, with a population of less than 50,000. Thus, the County of Orange participated on behalf of the City in the 2020 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI identified impediments for the entire county and for each entitlement city within Orange County. To address the contributing factors to AI, the plan proposes the following goals and actions: Regional Goals and Strategies Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas. Strategies from the Regional AI: 1. Explore the creation of a new countywide source of affordable housing. 2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply of affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, density bonuses, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-59 3. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restrictions on their property. 4. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing. 5. Align zoning codes to confirm to recent California affordable housing legislation. Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with disabilities. Strategies: 1. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel to ensure legal representation for tenants in landlord- tenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like AB 1482. Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. Strategies: 1. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a database of housing that is acceptable to persons with disabilities. 2. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which require at least 15 percent of all new units in city-supported Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LITHTC) projects to be ADA-accessible with at least 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities. Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. Strategies: 3. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD’s guidance on the use of criminal backgrounds in screening tenants. 4. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant rezoning proposals and specific plans. Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes. Strategies: 1. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice Voucher holders. 2. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas. 3. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County’s public transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. 4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach. Many of these actions need to be implemented by the County and/or at the regional level. Strategies that may be implemented in Seal Beach have been included in the Housing Action Plan, including actions to expand the supply of affordable housing; code amendments to comply with state laws; expanding outreach efforts regarding housing choice vouchers, including mobility counseling; and enhanced coordination with the OCFHC (Programs 1a, 1b, 3a, 5a and 5c). Section F.4 Site Inventory AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s sites inventory to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This section evaluates the City’s site inventory locations against various measures in the Assessment of Fair Housing that includes income level, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunity, and environmental risk to determine any socio-economic patterns or implications. F.4.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation A comparison of the sites inventory locations against the 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated areas can reveal if the City’s accommodation of housing sites is exacerbating or ameliorating segregation and social inequity. Figure F-35 shows the locations of Seal Beach’s sites inventory relative to these areas. The High-Poverty and Segregated map outlines areas that exhibit both high poverty rate with 30% or more of the population below the federal poverty line and racial segregation with an overrepresentation of individual non-white racial/ethnic groups and/or people of color as a whole relative to the county. Seal Beach does not contain any 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated areas. The closest of these areas are located several miles to the east and west of the City as shown in Figure F-35. The sites inventory therefore will not exacerbate fair housing issues with regard to High- Poverty and Segregated areas. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-61 Figure F -3 5: Sites Inventory and 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated Areas F.4.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity A comparison of the sites inventory locations with the 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map can demonstrate if the City’s accommodation of housing sites is exacerbating or ameliorating access to opportunity. Figure F-36 shows the locations of Seal Beach’s sites inventory on the 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map. This map identifies areas with characteristics that are associated, through research, with more positive economic, educational, and health outcomes (more opportunity) for low-income families with an emphasis on long-term outcomes for children. Higher resource areas are linked to more opportunity and better overall outcomes, especially for children. Seal Beach contains Moderate, High, and Highest Resource areas (no Low Resource Areas). Figure F-36 shows that the sites inventory is located across all three resource areas in southern, central, and northern sections of the City. As depicted below, the City’s lower-income housing sites inventory (portions of the Shops at Rossmoor and portions of the Old Ranch Town Center), as well as moderate-income sites, is accommodated in the Highest Resource area in the northern portion of the City, thereby improving access to opportunity for lower- and moderate-income households. In addition, the City’s sites inventory includes a moderate-income site at 1780 Pacific Coast Highway, which is also in a Highest Resource area, thereby improving access to opportunity for moderate-income households in desirable areas near the beach. The locations and income levels of the sites inventory locations therefore do not exacerbate fair housing issues regarding access to opportunity, but rather improve access to opportunity for lower- and moderate-income households. Figure F -3 6 : Sites Inventory and 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map Section F.5 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions Table F-12 lists the most prevalent fair housing issues and their corresponding contributing factors for the City of Seal Beach, as prioritized through the findings from the City’s outreach efforts and the above assessment, as outlined in Section F.3.7. Table F-12: Contributing Factors Priority Contributing Factor Fair Housing Issue 1 Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Disproportionate Housing Needs 2 Land use and zoning laws Disproportionate Housing Needs Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-63 Table F-12: Contributing Factors Priority Contributing Factor Fair Housing Issue 3 Community opposition Segregation and Integration 4 Location and type of affordable housing Segregation and Integration Table F-13 consists of proposed housing programs the City will pursue to specifically overcome identified patterns and trends from the above assessment and proactively affirmatively further fair housing in Seal Beach. The programs are detailed metrics and milestones in Section 4 of the Housing Element. Table F -13: Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Contributing Factor AFFH Strategy Meaningful Actions Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Developing multifamily housing opportunities Zoning, permit streamlining, and other approaches to increase housing choices and affordability • 1a: Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code • 1c: Promote Available Housing Incentives and Evaluate Effectiveness • 1h: Accessory Dwelling Units • 1j: Accessory Dwelling Units Monitoring Program • 1m: Streamlined Permit Processing and Transparency • 1o: Expedited Processing for Subdivision Maps including Affordable Units • 2b: Density Bonus Incentives and Information • 2c: Affordable Housing Resources • 3a: Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Assistance • 4b: Housing Information and Referral Services Land use and zoning laws Housing mobility strategies Encouraging the development of four or more units in a building • 1e: Ensure No Net Loss of Housing Capacity • 1i: Accessory Dwelling Units Amnesty Program • Program 1k: Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Center and Transitional/Supportive Housing • 1q: Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with State Law. • 3h: Remove Minimum Unit Size Requirements • 3i: Update Findings for Housing Projects to Ensure Objectivity • 3j: Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1- Bedroom Units • 5e: Reasonable Accommodation Provisions • 5k: Affordable Housing Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan Community opposition Affirmative marketing • 1g: Community Engagement and Outreach • 2a: Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process Location and type of affordable housing New housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity • 1b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone • 1l: Provisions of Adequate Public Facilities and Servies • 1n: SB 9 Lot Splits • 1p: Partner with the U.S. Navy and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station • 2g: Commercial Density Bonus • 3c: Local Coastal Program • 4a: Condominium Conversion • 5g: Accessible Housing • 5h: Fair Housing Task Force Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-1 Appendix G: Housing Resources Contents Appendix G: Housing Resources ................................................................ 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources .............................................................. 2 G.1.1 Local Resources .................................................................................................. 2 G.1.2 Regional Resources ............................................................................................. 3 G.1.3 State Resources .................................................................................................. 4 G.1.4 Federal Resources ............................................................................................... 4 Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ................................................................ 4 G-2 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources A variety of resources are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Seal Beach. This chapter provides an overview of the land resources and adequate sites to address the City’s RHNA and describes the financial and administrative resources available to support the provision of affordable housing. Additionally, the chapter discusses opportunities for energy conservation which can lower utility costs and increase housing affordability. G.1.1 Local Resources On February 1, 2012, the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency was dissolved as a result of the state legislature’s approval of Assembly Bill (AB) x1-26 (2011) and the California Supreme Court’s action upholding that law. On February 1, 2012, the City became the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, and redevelopment housing assets were transferred to the Orange County Housing Authority as the Housing Successor. At this time, no dedicated funding source for affordable housing is locally generated. A number of non-profit and governmental organizations are active in the development of affordable housing in the County of Orange. The City could potentially partner with one or more of these organizations for the development of affordable units. Habitat for Humanity: Habitat is a non-profit, nondenominational Christian organization that builds and repairs homes for very low-income families with the help of volunteers and homeowner/partner families. Habitat homes are sold to partner families at no profit with affordable, no interest loans. Habitat has completed numerous projects throughout Orange County. Jamboree Housing Corporation (JHC): JHC is a non-profit that has developed numerous affordable housing projects throughout Orange County and the State. Jamboree has also established an in-house social services division, “Housing with a HEART,” that operates at most properties to assist residents in maintaining self-sufficiency. Affirmed Housing: the Affirmed team seeks to provide affordable housing solutions that also consider community, transportation, and environmental concerns. Headquartered in San Diego, Affirmed has developed more than 60 projects serving families, seniors, and veterans in the greater San Diego, Orange County/Los Angeles, and Bay Area regions. Irvine Housing Opportunities (IHO): IHO formed in 1976 to address the shortage of affordable housing in Irvine, and has since expanded to several Southern California counties. IHO develops, owns and operates affordable housing for low to moderate income families and individuals, and is also involved in the acquisition and rehabilitation of at-risk projects and preservation as long- term affordable housing. Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-3 National Community Renaissance: National CORE is a nonprofit developer with in-house capacity to construct and renovate large scale developments. The company owns and manages more than 4,500 multifamily units throughout Southern California, including several projects in Orange County. As part of its inclusive approach to improving quality of life, it staffs community resource centers at all its properties. These centers are supported and administered by the Hope Through Housing Foundation. Neighbor Works Orange County (NHS OC): For 35 years, NHS OC has served Orange County, implementing innovative housing solutions that are accessible to families. NHS OC owns 110 affordable rental housing units that it has developed in targeted neighborhoods, and is actively engaged in the purchase, rehab and re-sale of foreclosed homes. The Agency provides a number of programs that benefit a variety of constituents, including: financial literacy; first -time home- buyer education, counseling and lending services; foreclosure prevention services; and community building programs. Orange County Community Housing Corporation (OCCHC): OCCHC's mission is to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self-sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education. Since its founding in 1977, OCCHC has developed over 200 units of affordable housing in various cities in Orange County. Most of these apartments are owned and managed by OCCHC. Orange Housing Development Corporation (OHDC): OHDC is a non-profit housing developer founded in 1990. Located in the City of Orange, the Agency’s start-up costs were originally funded by the Orange Redevelopment Agency. OHDC’s primary focus is within Orange County, but has developed over 3,000 units in communities throughout California. Southern California Housing Development Corporation: SoCal Housing is a non-profit developer with in-house capacity to construct and renovate large scale developments, with 4,500 units throughout Southern California. Its mission is to create affordable housing communities that contribute to neighborhood vitality. Community resource centers are provided at all SoCal Housing’s properties, administered by the Hope Through Housing Foundation. G.1.2 Regional Resources • Section 8 Rental Assistance – The City of Seal Beach works cooperatively with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), which administers the Section 8 Voucher Program. The Housing Assistance Payments Program assists low-income, elderly and disabled households by paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and the actual cost of renting a unit. The City facilitates use of the Section 8 program within its jurisdiction by encouraging apartment owners to list available rental units with OCHA for potential occupancy by tenants receiving Section 8 certificates. G-4 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources G.1.3 State Resources1 • Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program - The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding low- and moderate-income housing. Each state receives a tax credit, based upon population, toward funding housing that meets program guidelines. The tax credits are then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Limitations on projects funded under the Tax Credit programs include minimum requirements that a certain percentage of units remain rent-restricted, based upon median income, for a term of 30 years. G.1.4 Federal Resources • Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - Federal funding for housing programs to benefit lower income residents and neighborhoods is provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG program is flexible in that funds can be used for a wide range of activities including acquisition and or disposition of real estate, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction of housing, home ownership assistance, and clearing activities. The CDBG program provides formula funding to larger cities and counties, while smaller jurisdictions with less than 50,000 population generally compete for funding under the Urban County Consolidated Plan administered by the County of Orange. CDBG funds are limited in geographical use, as project expenditures must be used to benefit lower income areas. As described in Section II of this document, most Seal Beach households fall in moderate to higher income brackets. Therefore, CDBG expenditures are currently limited to the Leisure World area. In FY 2021-22 the City received a $200,000 grant from the County and $49,000 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds from the State, which are being used for bathroom accessibility improvements in the Leisure World community. This program continued in FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 with continued funding through both CDBG and PLHA. Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California Energy Code and are 1 Jurisdictions, such as the City of Seal Beach, are typically not eligible as applicants for these funding sources; affordable housing developers are typically the eligible applicants. Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-5 updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e., no more than 3 stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building inspection processes. Examples of techniques for reducing residential energy use include the following: • Glazing – Glazing on south facing exterior walls allows for winter sunrays to warm the structure. Reducing glazing and regulating sunlight penetration on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon sunrays from overheating the unit. • Landscaping – Strategically placed vegetation reduces the amount of direct sunlight on the windows. The incorporation of deciduous trees in the landscaping plans along the southern exposure of units reduces summer sunrays, while allowing penetration of winter sunrays to warm the units. • Building Design – The implementation of roof overhangs above southerly facing windows shield the structure from solar rays during the summer months. • Cooling/Heating Systems – The use of attic ventilation systems reduces attic temperatures during the summer months. Solar heating systems for swimming pool facilities saves on energy costs. Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow restrictors on all hot water faucets and showerheads. • Weatherizing Techniques – Weatherization techniques such as insulation, caulking, and weather stripping can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55% and for heating as much as 40%. Weatherization measures seal a dwelling unit to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter. • Efficient Use of Appliances – Appliances can be used in ways that increase their energy efficiency. Unnecessary appliances can be eliminated. Proper maintenance and use of stove, oven, clothes dryer, washer, dishwasher, and refrigerator can also reduce energy consumption. New appliance purchases can be made on the basis of efficiency ratings. • Solar Installations – On July 13, 2009, the City Council adopted a comprehensive fee schedule (Resolution 5898). The resolution waived all fees for standard residential solar installations. G-6 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources In addition to these techniques for reducing energy use in dwellings, the City supports broader “smart growth” efforts to encourage compact development and public transportation. For example, Programs 1a and 1b in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter V) include a commitment to process a zoning amendment to facilitate new high-density multi-family residential development on underutilized land in proximity to commercial and employment opportunities and bus transit. Such development contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through lower energy use and vehicle trips (see also Programs 6a and 6c). In addition, as part of the City’s program to assist low-income households in Leisure World to upgrade bathrooms to facilitate aging in place, the City will provide applicants with information on use of green materials and energy conserving measures in home improvements (Program 6b). City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Final Environmental Impact Report August 19, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2999 Oak Road, Suite 800 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR .............................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation ..................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Draft EIR ........................................................................................................ 3 1.3.3 Final EIR ........................................................................................................ 3 1.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION ............................ 3 1.5 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR ........................................................................................ 3 1.6 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR .................................................................. 4 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR ...................................... 5 2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ............................................................................................... 5 2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR ................. 6 2.3 MASTER RESPONSES ................................................................................................. 7 2.3.1 Master Response No. 1: Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review.................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Master Response No. 2: Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) ............................ 9 2.3.3 Master Response No. 3: Cumulative Analysis .............................................. 10 2.3.4 Master Response No. 4: Non-CEQA Related Concerns ............................... 12 2.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.....................................................................................12 2.4.1 Response to EQCB-Hsu: Board Member Belle Hsu ..................................... 13 2.4.2 Response to EQCB-Depew: Board Member Michael Depew ....................... 14 2.4.3 Response to EQCB-Perrell: Board Member Susan Perrell ........................... 15 2.4.4 Response to EQCB-Horning: Board Member Donald Horning ...................... 18 2.4.5 Response to EQCB-Villanueva: Board Member James Villanueva .............. 20 2.4.6 Response to EQCB-Coles: Richard Coles.................................................... 21 2.4.7 Response to EQCB-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic ......................................... 23 2.4.8 Response to CL-CaltransDOA: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – Vincent Ray .................................................................................................. 25 2.4.9 Response to CL-Caltrans: Caltrans District 12 – Scott Shelley ..................... 27 2.4.10 Response to CL-LosAlamitos: City of Los Alamitos – Ron Noda .................. 32 2.4.11 Response to CL-Hsu: Belle Hsu ................................................................... 34 2.4.12 Response to CL-Miller: Gary Miller ............................................................... 35 2.4.13 Response to CL-Perrell1: Susan Perrell ....................................................... 35 2.4.14 Response to CL-Perrell2: Susan Perrell ....................................................... 40 2.4.15 Response to CL-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic ............................................... 41 2.4.16 Response to CL-Lasser: Tom Lasser ........................................................... 44 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ...................................................................... 46 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................46 3.2 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR ..................................................46 4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 47 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report ii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: List of Commenters ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2-2: Master Responses .................................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A: EQCB Meeting Transcript Appendix B: Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report iii Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ADU accessory dwelling unit AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan ALUC Airport Land Use Commission BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Dixon CL- Comment Letter County Orange County EIR Environmental Impact Report EQCB Environmental Quality Control Board GSWC Golden State Water Company JFTB Joint Forces Training Base MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NOP Notice of Preparation OCWD Orange County Water District ORCC Old Ranch Country Club PRC Public Resources Code Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation ROW right-of-way SB Senate Bill SCH State Clearinghouse CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report iv UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WSA Water Supply Assessment CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach (City), as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023110425). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review between May 9, 2025, and June 23, 2025. The responses to the comments and other documents, which are included in this document, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the Final EIR for use by the City of Seal Beach, City Council in its review. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR CEQA requires a Lead Agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to provide a copy of the Draft EIR to responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft EIR as a result of the City’s ongoing planning efforts. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the Project. This Final EIR can also be used by responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project. The following agencies may serve as responsible and trustee agencies: • California Department of Transportation, District 12 • Regional Water Quality Control Board #8 • State Water Resources Control Board • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region #5 • Native American Heritage Commission • South Coast Air Quality Management District • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Coastal Commission CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction 2 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The Project is located in the City of Seal Beach in northwestern Orange County (County), California. The Project evaluated in this Program EIR involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which includes establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The site inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects. The Housing Opportunity Sites include a total of eight sites that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (1) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Beyond the site inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program in its Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed on the second floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The ORCC Pipeline Project is a proposed 155- acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of ORCC Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within the Draft EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. A detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR. 1.3 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The following provides a summary of the environmental review process to date for the Project that has resulted in the preparation of this Final EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction 3 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was submitted for a 30-day public review period on November 16, 2023. The comment period for the NOP closed on December 15, 2023. A Public Scoping Meeting was held on December 6, 2023 to solicit input from interested agencies and the public. The City received oral comments at the scoping meeting and also received several written comment letters during the public review period. The comments received were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR and are summarized in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. 1.3.2 Draft EIR The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review between May 9, 2025, and June 23, 2025. The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives. The Draft EIR was provided to interested public agencies and the public and was made available for review at City offices and on the City’s website. 1.3.3 Final EIR The City received comment letters from the SCH and the public regarding the Draft EIR. This document responds to the written comments received as required by CEQA. This document also contains any edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR. This document constitutes the Final EIR. 1.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION The City will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the City may certify the Final EIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it does the following: (1) shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and (2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the Project in contemplation of its environmental consequences. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may act to adopt, revise, or reject the Project. A decision to approve the Project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of the Project approval to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. 1.5 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project to the greatest extent possible. This EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions associated with the Project. Please refer to Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of the Project. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction 4 1.6 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR This document is organized into the following sections: Section 1: Introduction Section 1 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and the requirements of the Final EIR. Section 2: Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Section 2 provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section. Section 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Section 3 includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated as a result of comments or staff-initiated changes. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Measures that have been adopted or made a condition of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, provided under separate cover. Because of its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with these written responses; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the revisions or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 5 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR 2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS Written comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period and verbal comments received during the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting held on June 5, 2025, are included in this section. The format of the responses to all the comments is based on a unique letter and number code for each comment. The first set of letters refers to the format the comment was received in (comment letter [CL]; verbal comment at the EQCB meeting held on June 5, 2025 [EQCB]). The second set of letters refers to the individual agency, business, group, organization, or individual member of the public that provided the comment. The number at the end of the code refers to a specific comment within the individual communications. Therefore, each comment has a unique code assignment so that comments can be cross-referenced with the responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. When similar comments are made by multiple parties, the response is provided the first time the comment is made, and all other similar comments are referred back to that response. Additionally, a number of comments received on the Draft EIR focused on several main issues and topics associated with the Project and the CEQA analysis of project impacts. As such, the City determined it would be appropriate, and would facilitate public review, to provide master responses to address these comments and provide the necessary context for considering the issues raised. A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Table 2-1: List of Commenters Commenter(s) Agency/Organization Comment Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Comment Format Commenter Code Agencies Vincent Ray California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics 6/19/2025 Comment Letter CL-CaltransDOA Scott Shelley Caltrans District 12 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-Caltrans Ron Noda City of Los Alamitos 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-LosAlamitos Individuals Board Member Hsu City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Hsu Board Member Depew City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Depew Chair Perrell City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Perrell CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 6 Commenter(s) Agency/Organization Comment Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Comment Format Commenter Code Board Member Horning City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Horning Board Member Villanueva City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Villanueva Richard Coles 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Coles Councilwoman Patty Senecal 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Senecal Shelley Sustarsic 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Sustarsic Belle Hsu City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/20/2025 Comment Letter CL-Hsu Gary Miller 6/22/2025 Comment Letter CL-Miller Susan Perrell City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/18/2025 Comment Letter CL-Perrell1 Susan Perrell City of Seal Beach EQCB 6/20/2025 Comment Letter CL-Perrell2 Shelley Sustarsic 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-Sustarsic Tom Lasser 6/14/2025 Comment Letter CL-Lasser Comments received in person at the EQCB Meeting held on June 5, 2025 are provided under Appendix A. Written comments received on the Draft EIR are provided under Appendix B. 2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written response must address the significant environmental issues raised and must be detailed, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways that the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 also notes that commenters should provide an explanation and evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that where a response to comments results in revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 7 2.3 MASTER RESPONSES A number of comments received on the Draft EIR focused on several main issues and topics associated with the Project and the CEQA analysis of project impacts. As such, the City determined it would be appropriate, and would facilitate public review, to provide master responses to address these comments and provide the necessary context for considering the issues raised. The main issues and topics warranting master responses are provided in full, below, and include the following: Table 2-2: Master Responses Topics Master Response No. Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review 1 Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) 2 Cumulative Analysis 3 Non-CEQA Related Concerns 4 2.3.1 Master Response No. 1: Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the level of analysis contained within the Draft EIR and questioned the level of subsequent environmental review that would be required for future development projects developed as a result of the Project. Individual comment letters are summarized below in Section 2.4 Response to Comments. Individual comment letters that included comments pertaining to Master Response No. 1 summarized in Section 2.4 Response to Comments below are directed to this section for a response to their comments. As stated under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: • Geographically, • As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, • In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or • As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. 1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 8 2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. 3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. 4. Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR. 5. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed project description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. A project-level EIR generally focuses on the environmental changes caused by a development project, including planning, construction, and operation. A program EIR, on the other hand, generally looks at the broad policy of a planning document, i.e., a general plan, and may not address potential site-specific impacts of the individual projects that may fall within the planning document. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project does not propose any actual development at this time and certification of the Project and Draft EIR would only change the proposed land use of the identified sites. As there are no actual developments proposed at this time on the Housing Opportunity Sites (a specific project is proposed on the ORCC pipeline site, see Master Response 2), the potential impacts that could result from actual development are unknown. Therefore, a program EIR approach was used for the Project. When future developments are proposed on Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area and site plans are established, then each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. Unless and until further project-level details are developed, analysis at a project level would be incomplete. Some commenters expressed concerns that adoption of this program EIR would allow for future developments to be approved without going through its own independent environmental review process. However, future development projects would be required to undergo their own environmental review process. As outlined by J.W. DeShazer Foundation v. City of Glendale Redevelopment Agency (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 242, the courts rejected agency reliance on a general plan EIR alone to approve a specific development, emphasizing that the project’s unique impacts must be independently assessed. Therefore, CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 9 future development projects would not be allowed to rely solely on the Housing Element Program EIR for approval and would require independent environmental analysis. However, future development projects’ environmental analysis may utilize the Housing Element Program EIR to tier off of to streamline its environmental review. If the future project were to utilize the program EIR for subsequent project-level EIRs or CEQA filings, the project would be required to be consistent with the overarching analysis provided in the EIR. Though it would be anticipated that future developments located on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would require subsequent environmental review at the time of the proposed development application, some future developments may not require significant environmental review under CEQA. Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 131 were recently signed into state law on June 30, 2025 which contained significant reforms to CEQA relevant to housing projects. AB 130 exempts qualifying "infill" housing-rich projects from CEQA, with no labor or wage standard requirements for projects up to 85 feet tall, unless the project is 100 percent affordable. It also imposes a new 30-day deadline for agencies to act to approve or disapprove qualifying projects, which is a significant change from current law. For housing developments that qualify under the criteria for AB 130’s CEQA exemption, the project would be exempt from preparing a full environmental analysis document. SB 131 also constrains CEQA review for projects that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption (including AB 130's new statutory exemption for infill housing). Under SB 131, if a housing project would qualify for a CEQA exemption "but for a single condition" of that exemption, CEQA review for the housing project is limited to environmental effects caused by that single condition. Therefore, the initial study or environmental impact report for these "near-miss" projects is only required to examine environmental effects that are caused "solely" by the presence of the single condition that precluded qualification. As many of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area identified for the Project are located on infill sites, future developments proposed on these sites could potentially utilize the recently adopted CEQA review laws under AB 130 and SB 131. If a future development project is determined to qualify under AB 130 or SB 131, then the project may not be required to prepare an environmental analysis document or may be limited in the scope of impacts that it may be required to analyze. Each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines by the City to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. 2.3.2 Master Response No. 2: Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Several commenters had concerns related to potential future development proposed on the ORCC Specific Plan Project site due to its location within proximity to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), land use conflicts, drainage, and increased population and traffic in the area as a result of the project. As stated in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 10 toward the RHNA and are considered pipeline projects. Therefore, the Housing Element Update identified ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The 167 dwelling units proposed through the ORCC Specific Plan Project are programmatically evaluated in the Draft EIR as the units are included within the City's site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a specific plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, cannot be analyzed at a programmatic level in the Housing Element Draft EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, the Draft EIR evaluated the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan, only. Therefore, the location of the proposed residential developments and its potential safety impacts and associated land use conflicts are being evaluated in a standalone EIR by the City and is not required to be analyzed in this Draft EIR. 2.3.3 Master Response No. 3: Cumulative Analysis Several commenters questioned what was included in the cumulative impact analysis and stated careful consideration should be taken in the Draft EIR’s cumulative impact analysis due to the Project and other developments in the vicinity of the City’s creation of population growth and that potential impacts that could occur as a result. As outlined in Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time. A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts. In this case, the Housing Element Update itself is a plan-level document which provides for increased residential development within the City across a relatively broad geography, including potential housing development that exceeds the regional forecast included for the City in regional plans. The nature of the Project does not alter the need to analyze cumulative impacts, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1), regional growth projections prepared for Connect SoCal 2024 and contained in the County’s transportation model are used for the analysis of VMT and related topics such as air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. The geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts is dependent on the resource being analyzed. The geographic area associated with a Project’s environmental impacts defines the boundaries of the area used for compiling the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered in the CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 11 cumulative impacts analysis. Some analysis including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing, relies on much larger geographic areas such as the Southern California region. For analysis that may have more localized or neighborhood implications (biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public services, utilities), the cumulative impact analysis includes development projects that have recently been approved or have a pending application. Additionally, it includes potential future developments and opportunity sites that have been identified in the Housing Element Update for the adjacent cities. A list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area that has been identified to be included in the cumulative analysis, including cumulative developments such as the Lampson Project, is identified in Table 3.0-3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR focuses on the Seal Beach Housing Element and associated Zoning Code Update; however, the Seal Beach Housing Element's larger implications of growth such as to transportation systems utilized by people that reside outside of the City are considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Other entity's housing elements and individual projects proposed outside of the City but within the region that could impact Seal Beach are analyzed at a cumulative level. Other entity’s housing elements are considered as part of the cumulative impact analysis as future housing projects proposed on the candidate sites identified in the individual housing element could result in increase growth in the area and contribute to cumulative impacts. However, other General Plan elements are not considered in the cumulative impact analysis as individual General Plan elements by itself would not result in increased growth in a specific area, unlike the housing element. The cumulative impact analysis is provided at the end of each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR. Though the Draft EIR includes a cumulative analysis of the Project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, as the Draft EIR is a program level document and analyzes the land use modifications and increased growth opportunity within the City that could occur as a result of the Project, site specific impacts that could result from the future development of the sites and its potential cumulative contributions are unknown. Commenters expressed concerns with cumulative impacts related to transportation, circulation, and congestion that may occur as a result of the Project in combination with other individual projects and developments in the area (i.e., development projects located adjacent to and/or in the vicinity of Seal Beach). As the Project does not propose any specific development at this time and would only result in modifications to the proposed land uses for certain sites within the City, the potential impacts that could result on these identified sites are unknown and speculative at this time. Though a specific development application has been submitted for the ORCC Specific Plan Project, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a specific plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, cannot be analyzed at a programmatic level in the Housing Element Draft EIR. When future developments are proposed on Housing Opportunity Sites and site plans are established, then subsequent analysis of the future development’s contribution to impacts (including cumulative) such as transportation and congestion, air quality, and noise, will be prepared if it is determined to be required for the individual development. As stated above under Master Response 1, each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines by the City to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 12 subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. Additionally, development projects located in and within the vicinity of Seal Beach would have to take into account the Seal Beach Housing Element EIR’s potential impacts within their own CEQA document’s cumulative impact analysis and mitigate any potentially significant cumulative impacts to the extent feasible. 2.3.4 Master Response No. 4: Non-CEQA Related Concerns Several commenters stated concerns for topics such as availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and financial and economic impacts of the Project. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1614-1618; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905.) While identifying the environmental effects of the Project to an area is consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose and statutory requirements, identifying the effects on the Project and its users of locating the Project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist form that is suggested for use in preparing an initial study, and which the City has employed to assist in the preparation of the Draft EIR (see Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (f)). Nevertheless, a few of the questions on the checklist form do concern the exposure of people or structures to environmental hazards and could be construed to refer to not only the Project’s exacerbation of environmental hazards but also the effects on users of the Project and structures in the Project of preexisting environmental hazards. To the extent that such questions may encompass the latter effects, the questions do not relate to environmental impacts under CEQA and cannot support an argument that the effects of the environment on the Project must be analyzed in an EIR. (Ballona Wetlands Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473- 474.). Additionally, potentially fiscal and economic impacts of a Project would not require analysis under CEQA as impacts related to fiscal and economic changes are not considered to be an effect of the Project on the environment. 2.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2023110425) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The verbal and written individual comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. The comment letters and verbal comments made at the EQCB meeting are reproduced in their entirety and are followed by the response(s). All comments are indicated by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 13 2.4.1 Response to EQCB-Hsu: Board Member Belle Hsu Response to Comment EQCB-Hsu-1 The commenter raised concerns about the affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, especially for low-income residents. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding, earthquakes, and wildfire hazards, were evaluated in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, as it is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with insurance are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statutes stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. The state's site evaluation guidelines are very specific about the feasibility of proposing sites such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. Though economic and social effects can be considered in determining the significance of physical changes caused by a proposed project, the comment does not relate to the potential impact significance determination for resources analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the topic of potential concerns related to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance is not a CEQA related issue and does not require discussion in the Project’s Draft EIR. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. Response to Comment EQCB-Hsu-2 The commenter stated their concern with drainage issues in the City and questions how drainage issues are going to be handled so that they don't further compound the other drainage issues that exist. Hydrology and stormwater drainage are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 14 2.4.2 Response to EQCB-Depew: Board Member Michael Depew Response to Comment EQCB-Depew-1 The commenter stated their concerns with the mitigation imposing fees on the developers for water supply and questioned the effectiveness of using developer fees to mitigate water supply issues as we can't buy more water if it does not exist. The commenter suggested other methods to utilize the collected fees to mitigate such as recycled water. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate their proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. This mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts to the infrastructure of utilities, not to mitigate impacts related to water supply. The funds collected through the proposed mitigation measure can be used by the City to improve utility infrastructure within the City to serve its residents, including installing a recycled water system if it was determined to reduce deficiencies that require infrastructure improvements. How the City utilizes the funds collected would be at the discretion of the City. As identified under Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR under Impact UTIL-2, the Project was determined to have a less than significant impact related to water supply and did not require mitigation to reduce impacts as sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project. As identified in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve buildout of the Project. As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an approximate 8 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands for the City, and approximately 1 percent increase in supply is required to meet the demands for Golden State Water Company (GSWC). According to both the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, after 2025, the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) within the OC Basin is assumed to be set at 85 percent for retail water suppliers. This would mean that the portfolio for each retail water supplier that pumps groundwater from the OC Basin would be composed of 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water. As part of the Orange County Water District’s (OCWD’s) Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. OCWD assesses the basin annually and sets a BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the retail water supplier’s total water demand that comes from groundwater. The BPP is based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET), the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish a Replenishment Assessment (RA) based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) fee. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 15 As identified in the Draft EIR, the City’s and GSWC’s projected water supplies identified in their respective 2020 UWMPs would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project. However, each retail water supplier would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Imported MET water purchases through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and groundwater production within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination based on the estimated demands and various other factors in Orange County. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. For any demands beyond the annual estimates within the retail water suppliers service area, the retail water supplier may either have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA or would need to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. The commenter questioned the effectiveness of using developer fees to mitigate water supply issues as we can't buy more water if it does not exist. As identified in the Draft EIR Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems, there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin. Additionally, as identified under Impact UTIL-2 of the Draft EIR, each retail water supplier that serves the City would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Therefore, as there would be more water available for use, the City is not anticipated to run into a problem of additional water not existing as outlined in the Draft EIR analysis. Additionally, the developer fees are intended to mitigate impacts related to utility infrastructure and any improvements that could be required as a result of increased growth. The developer fees are not intended to mitigate water supply issues. 2.4.3 Response to EQCB-Perrell: Board Member Susan Perrell Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-1 The commenter agreed with comment EQCB-Hsu-1 related concerns about affordability and availability of homeowners insurance and also stated that insurance costs are part of the first two objectives of the EIR “protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents.” Potential impacts related to homeowners’ insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9), earthquakes (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), and wildfire hazards (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, as insurance is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statutes stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. The state's site evaluation guidelines related to Housing Element law are very specific about site feasibility such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 16 and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. Though economic and social effects can be considered in determining the significance of physical changes caused by a proposed project, the comment does not relate to the potential impact significance determination for resources analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the topic of potential concerns related to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance is not a CEQA related issue and does not require discussion in the Project’s Draft EIR. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. There are no specific parameters for the quality-of-life objective and the definition of what quality of life constitutes depends on how the reader interprets the objective. Though rising insurance costs could result in diminishing quality of life for existing residents, rising insurance costs is neither an impact of the project on the environment nor is it a topic of analysis under CEQA. Increased housing opportunities in the City could increase quality of life for existing and future residents by providing a more diverse housing stock for the city including a variety and range of residential development types and affordability levels. Additionally, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-2 The commenter commended staff and CEQA consultants on the preparation of the document noting its organization, clarity, and addressing comments received on the NOP. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-3 The commenter voiced concerns about conflicting project objectives included in the Draft EIR related to protecting quality of life vs. complying with RHNA mandates. The commenter stated 1,243 new housing units will create significant impacts that would not allow for the project to protect and improve quality of life for the City's residents. The commenter suggested different approaches to reduce impacts and ensure CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 17 objectives do not conflict such as lowering density, reducing flooding by putting in permeable pavement, reducing transportation impacts by requiring bike lanes. The commenter stated that more emphasis needs to be put on the quality-of-life project objective. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-4 The commenter stated their agreement with comment EQCB-Depew-1 related to mitigating water supply impacts. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate their proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. This mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts to the infrastructure of utilities, not to mitigate impacts related to water supply. As identified under Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR under Impact UTIL-2, the Project was determined to have a less than significant impact related to water supply and did not require mitigation to reduce impacts as sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project. The funds collected through the proposed mitigation measure can be used by the City to improve utility infrastructure within the City to serve its residents, including installing a recycled water system if it was determined to reduce deficiencies that require infrastructure improvements. How the City utilizes the funds collected would be at the discretion of the City. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-5 The commenter stated they have the same concerns as EQCB-Hsu-2 related to stormwater flooding and encouraged others to come up with more comments and submit the comments before the deadline. See response to EQCB-HSU-2 for a response related to stormwater drainage. The comment encouraging submittal of comments is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-6 The commenter called for the preparation of a separate EIR for Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive, citing its unique ecological and recreational value. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 18 The comment is noted. As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites included in the Draft EIR. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review. Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-7 The commenter asked procedural questions regarding whether certification of the EIR would mean the specific sites are not evaluated during subsequent entitlements process. The comment is related to the procedure of the CEQA process and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Future development projects subsequently proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area included in the Draft EIR will require their own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division and certification of the Draft EIR would not preclude subsequent environmental review by the City for future projects. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of subsequent environmental review process. 2.4.4 Response to EQCB-Horning: Board Member Donald Horning Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-1 The commenter asked procedural questions related to who would respond to comments from Leisure World. The comment is related to the procedure of how comments received on the Draft EIR are addressed and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. All comments received on the Draft EIR are addressed by the consultants and the City preparing the Final EIR. Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-2 The commenter outlined that the Draft EIR includes significant impacts for five topics including air pollution, greenhouse gases, public services, recreation, and transportation and stated the importance of disclosing specific site impacts early such as why a particular site has not been previously developed and when they should be brought up. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 19 As identified in the Draft EIR, the five resource topics that were determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact were air pollution, greenhouse gases, public services, recreation, and transportation. Impacts related to air pollution are discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, greenhouse gas impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.7, public service impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.13, recreation impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.14, and transportation impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.15. The comment is a general comment and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Public comments are valued during the Draft EIR review process as they can reveal specific impacts residents of a project area face that are not formally documented in other readily available environmental documents. Whether the comments received come from a specific agency or board or it comes from a quadrant of a community or representation of a few neighbors or individuals, all comments received are considered and responded to with the same level of weight and consideration. Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-3 The commenter questioned how nearby entities such as Rossmoor and Los Alamitos that have their own Housing Element studies fit together with the Seal Beach Housing Element Update Draft EIR and questions if the Draft EIR only focuses on the opportunity sites identified for Seal Beach and how cumulative impacts are discussed. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR focuses on the Seal Beach Housing Element and related Zoning Code Amendments; however, the larger implications of growth in the vicinity of the City are considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Other entities’ housing elements and individual projects proposed outside of the City but within the region that could impact Seal Beach are analyzed at a cumulative level. The geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR is dependent on the cumulative impact setting for each resource. The geographic scope of cumulative impacts for each resource is outlined in Table 3.0-2 in the Draft EIR. The cumulative impact analysis is provided at the end of each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR. See also Master Response 3 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis. Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-4 The commenter stated the purpose of the meeting is to motivate the community with education and to solicit comments and suggested everyone compile their comments and send it in before the deadline. The comment is a general statement encouraging the public to provide comments on the Draft EIR and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-5 The commenter states the importance that each individual site is evaluated in depth before being offered as an opportunity site; however, understands they don't have a say in the housing element process and therefore, providing comments is necessary to be their own defense team. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 20 The Housing Opportunity Sites presented in the Seal Beach Housing Element Update were determined using a variety of methods. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. To ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility were determined by a number of different variables, including improvement-to-land value ratio, existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses, and by recent patterns and trends in the region. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Therefore, each individual Housing Opportunity Site was evaluated in depth related to the feasibility and compatibility of development or redevelopment of the site before being chosen as an opportunity site and opportunities were provided for public input on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Site evaluation and selection was performed in advance of the Draft EIR in order to create a project description for evaluation by the Draft EIR. Additionally, see Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis provided in a program-level vs. project-level CEQA analysis. 2.4.5 Response to EQCB-Villanueva: Board Member James Villanueva Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-1 The commenter stated they agree with EQCB-Perrell-3 regarding the quality-of-life project objective and what impacts would occur but requested people consider a broader definition of quality of life as increasing the amount of residents in the City would allow for property tax revenue to increase and would increase activity on Main Street which would be beneficial and would improve quality of life. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-2 The commenter commended staff and CEQA consultants on the preparation of the document. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 21 relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-3 The commenter stated that they think it would be a shame to see the 99 Marina property be developed with a dense development due to its unique value and contemplates whether a portion of the site can be set aside for open space while the remainder is available for development The comment regarding the commenter's feelings about Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marine Drive and their desire to set aside a portion of the property for open space is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.6 Response to EQCB-Coles: Richard Coles Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-1 The commenter stated their relevant experience working with and reviewing EIRs. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-2 The commenter stated they believe there should be separate EIRs for geologically distinct sites. The comment is noted. As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites included in the Draft EIR. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for a future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of analysis contained in a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR and subsequent environmental review. Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-3 The commenter highlighted concerns about stormwater, aging infrastructure, traffic, and air quality. The commenter stated concerns related to air quality specifically at the 99 Marina site due to Long Beach passing three new major developments in the vicinity. Additionally, the commenter expressed concerns CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 22 with redeveloping the Main Street area with up to 115 new units diminishing the existing visual character of the area. Stormwater and utility infrastructure are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation and air quality impacts are analyzed in Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR. Additionally, potential cumulative impacts related to the three Long Beach developments referenced by the commenter are included in the cumulative impact analysis for the Project and air quality impacts related to these developments have been evaluated. The cumulative air quality impact analysis is provided at the end of Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR. In addition, redevelopment of the Main Street area with up to 115 second-story units is the highest intensity scenario, which was analyzed in the Draft EIR to ensure that potential future impacts from development of residential units within the Main Street area are included and evaluated in the Draft EIR. As identified in the City's Housing Element Update, the City realistically anticipates permitting the construction of two residential units in the Main Street area during the Housing Element Update's planning period. Additionally, the Project’s amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan to allow for second-story residential uses would not result in modifications to the development standards for the area. The development standards such as those related to the height of proposed structures would not change as a result of the Project as two-story structures are already allowed in the area. Therefore, future residential uses within the area would be developed in accordance with the existing development standards and in character with the existing development pattern of the area and would not result in changes to the existing visual character of the area. Response to EQCB-Senecal: Patt Senecal Response to Comment EQCB-Senecal-1 The commenter criticized the VMT metric and raised concerns about traffic congestion, air quality, particulate pollution, and noise that could result. The commenter questioned whether they can require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on these sites or near the sites on a continual tracking basis for air quality to understand potential impacts. As identified in the Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, in accordance with state guidelines, VMT analysis that incorporates the requirements of SB 743 was utilized as one measure of the Project’s potential transportation impacts. SB 743 required OPR to establish guidelines under CEQA for identifying and mitigating VMT transportation impacts. Generally, SB 743 moves away from using delay-based LOS as the metric for identifying a significant impact and instead uses VMT. The City of Seal Beach adopted an SB 743 Implementation Policy and a new Transportation Analysis Guidelines. The methodology and threshold of significance identified in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines were used in the VMT analysis provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter's criticism of the VMT metric is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation and air quality and particulate pollution impacts are analyzed in Section 3.2 Air Quality and Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. Additionally, noise impacts are analyzed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 23 The commenter questioned if the City can require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on the sites or near the sites on a continual tracking basis of the air quality so that they can monitor and know what air quality impacts are occurring. The Project was evaluated in the Draft EIR utilizing required standards under the State CEQA Guidelines and the Draft EIR evaluates the Project against the existing conditions which serve as the baseline for potential impacts. As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the baseline constitutes the existing physical conditions by which a lead agency determined whether an impact is significant. Though the City could implement air monitoring at these sites to see how future developments impact air quality , such activity would not result in changes to the significance determination included in the Draft EIR as future conditions are unknown. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration. 2.4.7 Response to EQCB-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-1 The commenter stated that there are existing storm drainage and hydrology impacts that exist within the City and expressed their concerns that the Project will exacerbate the existing problem. Hydrology and stormwater drainage are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level. Each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. If subsequent environmental review, such as the preparation of a project-specific EIR, is determined to not be required, that is a result of the individual project meeting CEQA exemption requirements which determines that the level of risk of the individual project resulting in significant impacts are low and therefore does not require a full environmental analysis or mitigation measures to reduce impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-2 The commenter questioned how tall the subsequent developments would be due to the proposed density (for example for the Shops at Rossmoor) and the potential impacts that could result due to JFTB and Los Alamitos airport related to light and glare, noise, and safety. As specific development applications have not been submitted for the Housing Opportunity Sites or Main Street Program area, the actual development and structures that would be constructed at these sites are CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 24 currently unknown. However, all future development projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be required to comply with the City's design standards and guidelines, including those related to the maximum building heights. Potential impacts related to Los Alamitos JFTB are evaluated in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR under Impact HAZ-1. The evaluation included an analysis of noise, safety, and height restriction impacts and determined that future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Los Alamitos JFTB and impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-3 The commenter expressed concerns with cumulative developments and potential impacts and stated cumulative impacts on traffic, hydrology, sewer, light and glare have to be considered. See Master Response 3 for a response related to the cumulative impact assessment provided in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-4 The commenter expressed their concerns about increased traffic and stated traffic impacts should be considered on each proposed site as well as cumulative traffic impacts. Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. Section 3.15 Transportation includes an analysis of the Project and the potential effects future development projects on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area may have on the existing transportation network as well as cumulative transportation impacts that could result from a combination of the Project with other various development proposals in the area. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation and the Project would require a Statement of Overriding Consideration from the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review, and Master Response 3 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-5 The commenter expressed their concerns with a finding of no significant impact related to airport hazards due to potential noise and safety impacts from flight paths and states the General Plan has a goal to discourage further encroachment into the Los Alamitos JFTB flight path Potential impacts related to Los Alamitos JFTB are evaluated in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR under Impact HAZ-1. The evaluation included an analysis of noise, safety, and height restriction impacts and determined that future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB and impacts would be less than significant. As identified in the Draft EIR, future developments proposed under the Project that are exposed to existing or projected noise, including aircraft noise, that exceeds noise standards identified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific acoustical study and identify mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element and preparing an acoustical study would minimize potential impacts and ensure that future developments would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies. Additionally, based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 25 Sites nor the Main Street Program area are located within the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB. As such, the Project was determined to not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic6 The commenter asked a procedural question related to the next housing element cycle and what would happen if the City is required to provide even more housing and questioned if everything will become a tall tower in the City. The state is currently in its 6th cycle of the housing element which covers the planning period between 2021 to 2029. The RHNA requirement for the City for the 7th housing element cycle is currently unknown. Once the next housing element cycle commences, the City would be required to update its Housing Element and plan for any additional housing allocation at that time. The comment is a procedural question, and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-7 The commenter questioned who would bear the cost of infrastructure upgrades if a large development necessitates an upgrade to the City's infrastructure and questions the potential burden it would put on City tax payers. As identified in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate its proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. Therefore, future development projects that are facilitated by the Project would be required to fund infrastructure upgrades that would be required as a result of the proposed development. If a large development is proposed in the City that would necessitate an upgrade to the City's infrastructure, the development would be required to undergo its own environmental review process that would then, if required, analyze its impacts on utility infrastructure and implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts as necessary. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements and also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. 2.4.8 Response to CL-CaltransDOA: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – Vincent Ray Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-1 The commenter outlined the goal of the Division to assist cities in ensuring compliance with the State Aeronautics Act and outlined the Project and its Housing Opportunity Sites located closest to the Los CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 26 Alamitos JFTB. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-2 The commenter outlined that though the AELUP for Los Alamitos JFTB does not depict off-base accident potential zones, safety related exposure is a consideration and a portion of the Housing Opportunity Sites falls within the 65 CNEL contour indicating exposure to aircraft overflight noise. The commenter states that while sound insulation, aviation easements, and disclosure statements may serve as mitigation, the measures do not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise or vibration annoyances to residents. Noise and vibrational impacts are discussed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR. As outlined in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR, the City's General Plan requires for where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise and vibration impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3. Therefore, any Housing Opportunity Sites located in areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5, would be required to prepare an acoustical study and implement mitigation to reduce interior noise levels. Therefore, future development projects located on Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 would reduce potential impacts resulting from aircraft overflight noise to the extent feasible and would eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to residents. The preparation of a project specific analysis of noise and vibration impacts would reduce interior noise levels. However, as stated by the commenter, it would not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to residents from existing overhead aircraft noise. The purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Therefore, the Project is not required to mitigate potential impacts that could result for future Project residents from existing noise sources in the area. The existing overhead aircraft noise is a matter outside of the City’s control and the City is not required to reduce existing exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to future residents as those potential impacts would not be an impact that would result as a result of the Project onto the environment. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis contained in the Draft EIR and see Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-3 The commenter suggested the City consider relocating or eliminating Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 to minimize potential land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities and reduce long-term exposure of residents to aircraft noise, vibration and potential safety hazards. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 27 Aircraft noise and vibration hazards are discussed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR and potential safety hazards related to aircraft safety are discussed in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to aircraft safety and noise hazards. Any Housing Opportunity Sites located in areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5, would be required to prepare an acoustical study and implement mitigation to reduce interior noise levels and therefore, future development projects located on Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 would reduce potential impacts resulting from aircraft overflight noise to the extent feasible. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements. As identified in the Draft EIR, based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the Clear Zones/Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB and would not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Additionally, future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. With compliance with existing regulations and requirements related to Los Alamitos JFTB, the Project would not result in land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities. The Housing Opportunity Sites presented in the Seal Beach Housing Element were determined using a variety of methods in accordance with the statutory requirements outlined in HCD's Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, including ensuring sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development and development likelihood and feasibility. Feasibility of sites considered any potential environmental restrictions such as being located in a flood zone, compatibility with existing nearby uses, and any potential known safety hazards. Therefore, each individual Housing Opportunity Site identified for the Project was evaluated in depth related to feasibility and compatibility of development or redevelopment of the site before being chosen as an opportunity site. Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-4 The commenter provided a conclusion statement of their comments and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review and comment and provided their contact information. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.9 Response to CL-Caltrans: Caltrans District 12 – Scott Shelley Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-1 The commenter expressed their appreciation for allowing them to provide comments on the Draft EIR and provided a description of the Project and City's location in relation to Caltrans owned highway systems. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 28 relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-2 The commenter outlined that they encourage the City to work collaboratively with local agencies to create a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network through use of design of Complete Streets, placement of bicycle parking through the City, use of transit, and addition of high visibility crosswalks and ADA curb ramps on intersections close to future project locations. As outlined in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards. Any request to modify or develop new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-3 The commenter requested that appropriate detours and safety measures be in place for future construction activities. As identified in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Project does not currently include site specific designs and construction activities. However, as individual development applications are received and approved by the City, the City would require each individual project to comply with City construction requirements including preparing a Traffic Control Plan that identifies detours and safety measures for construction activities that would require partial or full roadway closures. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-4 The commenter states the Draft EIR does not include a discussion of regional freight corridors located near the City and the addition of new residential units through the Project could impact or be impacted by existing freight routes. The commenter requests the Draft EIR identify and map the proximity of Housing Opportunity Sites to regional truck corridors and utilize the Caltrans Freight-Land Use Compatibility Matrix to evaluate potential land use conflicts with potential freight sensitive uses. Caltrans freight corridors refer to designated routes within California's transportation network that are critical for the movement of goods and freight. Within Seal Beach, those would the 605, 405, 22 Freeways and the Pacific Coast Highway, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans; and Westminster Avenue and CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 29 Seal Beach Boulevard, which are under the jurisdiction of the City of Seal Beach. However, the Project itself would not have direct impacts to freight routes as the Project does not propose any actual development at this time and would only lead to modifications to the proposed land use and/or zoning for identified sites within the City. Though subsequent developments located on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area could lead to increased vehicles on roadways and potential minor changes to the circulation system of the specific sites, future development projects are not anticipated to result in substantial changes to the City's circulation network. Certification of the Project would not result in direct impacts to existing freight routes or result in potential land use conflicts with freight sensitive uses. The commenter states the Draft EIR lacks an evaluation of potential freight sensitive use conflicts such as exposure to truck noise, emissions, and vibrations and requests the use of Caltrans Freight-Land Use Compatibility Matrix to evaluate potential land use conflicts and apply mitigation strategies. The purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Existing freight corridors are not considered an environmental impact and therefore, the Draft EIR is not required to analyze the impacts of the existing freight corridor conditions on the Project. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of potential impacts related to freight corridors. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis contained in the Draft EIR and see Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. Additionally, as identified in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR, the City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3 of the General Plan as required by City standards. Therefore, following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure from transportation noise sources would reduce any potential impacts for future residential uses including from potential impacts that could result from the site being located in the vicinity of a freight corridor. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-5 The commenter states the Draft EIR omits how increased density may affect truck routes, delivery access, or curbside loading conflicts and requests the EIR include a discussion of how future development will coexist with ongoing truck access needs. As stated in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Future developments on the Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards which would ensure that the future development would not result in conflicts with existing circulation systems including truck routes, delivery access, or curbside loading. Potential impacts related to future development on truck routes, delivery access, and curbside loading would be analyzed at CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 30 the time of individual development application as specific site plans and circulation details are unknown at this time. Due to the programmatic level analysis provided in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of project-specific buildout conditions such as construction or improvements to roadways and circulation systems. Future developments under the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the type of analysis included in a programmatic level document. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-6 The commenter requests the Draft EIR add a freight resilience section to the Draft EIR to consider how emergency goods movement or freight continuity would be affected in the context of climate adaptation. The commenter requests that the Draft EIR include a section on how emergency goods movement and freight continuity would be affected in the context of climate adaptation as the City is located in a coastal zone. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1614-1618; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905.) While identifying the environmental effects of the Project to an area is consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose and statutory requirements, identifying the effects on the Project and its users of locating the Project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes. Additionally, the Project is not a transportation project and therefore, would not result in impacts to emergency goods movement and freight continuity. Sea level rise and climate adaptation may affect emergency goods movement and freight continuity within the City gradually in the future if the City is impacted by climate change; however, this potential effect is not relevant to the Project and is not an impact on the environment caused by the Project. Therefore, an analysis of climate adaptation and related impacts to freight service is not a required topic under CEQA and does not require analysis in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-7 The commenter requests the Draft EIR include a policy consistency review with the regional freight goals in SCAG's Connect Socal 2024 or Caltrans Freight Mobility Plan 2020. The commenter requests the EIR address freight-supportive and freight-compatible development for consistency with regional freight goals in SCAG's Connect Socal 2024 or Caltrans Freight Mobility Plan 2020. As stated in the Draft EIR, the Project identifies specific sites within the City for potential development with residential uses in the future and does not propose any actual development at this time. The Project identifies sites for potential future development with residential uses on sites that are already developed with existing uses or are located in an extremely urbanized environment surrounded by existing developments. The Project is not a transportation project and future developments facilitated by the Project would not be anticipated to result in significant changes to the surrounding environment and existing circulation system. Additionally, the purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Impacts related to regional freight corridors are not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. As potential conflicts with freight corridors is not a required topic of CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 31 analysis under CEQA, an analysis of regional freight goals and policies is not required for the EIR. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-8 The commenter notes if future projects disrupt or impede traffic circulation or the local state highway system, Caltrans will request a Traffic Impact Analysis be prepared and would require analysis of potential short-term and long-term traffic impacts with respect to VMT. Additionally, the commenter requests if impact analysis leads to a findings of significance on state facilities, coordination with Caltrans on development of a Traffic Mitigation Agreement be completed. As identified in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, at the time of application for development, each site would be responsible for providing a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines and would be responsible for identifying appropriate TDM measures to reduce VMT. Future development projects would be required to go through the appropriate environmental review process for the respective project and would be required to comply with City and other agency requirements such as coordinating with Caltrans on preparation of traffic mitigation measures to be implemented. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. If subsequent environmental review, such as the preparation of a project-specific EIR, is determined to not be required, that is a result of the individual project meeting CEQA exemption requirements which determines that the level of risk of the individual project resulting in significant impacts are low and therefore does not require a full environmental analysis or mitigation measures to reduce impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements. Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-9 The commenter states any work performed within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit prior to construction. The commenter outlines specific steps to be taken such as submitting a permit application, payment of deposit, review of project plans and traffic control plans, and required documentation for application submittal. Future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with City and other agency requirements for construction of the Project. If the individual development project is anticipated to require construction within Caltrans ROW, the Project would be required to comply with applicable Caltrans requirements including obtaining an encroachment permit prior to construction. The specific requirements for the individual development project would be determined at the time of application submittal. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration. No further response is necessary. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 32 Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-10 The commenter outlined Caltrans' mission and provided contact information. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.10 Response to CL-LosAlamitos: City of Los Alamitos – Ron Noda Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-1 The commenter expressed their appreciation for allowing them to provide comments on the Draft EIR and provided a description of the Project. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-2 The commenter expressed their concerns with the Housing Opportunity Sites identified to provide the highest lower-income units being located adjacent to the City of Los Alamitos and as a result, the potential impacts that would result from placing higher density units near Los Alamitos leading to a concentration of noise, air quality, and transportation impacts through increased volume of traffic that would travel the northbound 605 interstate. The commenter also stated the proximity of these units would also add cumulative rush hour inconvenience and health issues for Los Alamitos residents. Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 are identified to be located closest to Los Alamitos and are the two sites that are identified to provide the most units out of the 8 Housing Opportunity Sites. However, this is a result of the quantity of developable acres that these sites provide compared to the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites. Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 are both identified to provide the largest developable area compared to the remaining sites and therefore, would be able to be developed with more units compared to the remaining sites. Additionally, the City’s Housing Element Appendix B Site Inventory and Methodology outlines the reason for selection of each Housing Opportunity Site. As outlined in the Housing Element’s Appendix B, Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 were selected due to the reasons provided below. Housing Opportunity Site 4 – the Shops at Rossmoor was selected due to “An abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use.” (City of Seal Beach 2024) CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 33 Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center was selected due to “Having a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. Currently, the former Bed Bath and Beyond store is vacant. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with on- site residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development.” (City of Seal Beach 2024) Therefore, these sites were selected due to their availability for redevelopment, current underutilization of land, access to major roadway networks, and existence of high density residential developments in the adjacent areas. As identified in the City's Housing Element Update, state law establishes a “default density” of 30 units per acre that is suitable for lower-income housing in communities with a population over 25,000, including Seal Beach. All lower-income sites in the City's sites inventory are consistent with this general affordability assumption. However, state law provides that sites smaller than 0.5 acre, or larger than 10 acres, are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. All sites smaller than 0.5 acre in the City's sites inventory have been allocated to the moderate or above moderate income categories. Therefore, as many of the sites identified in the City's site inventory were determined to not be suitable for lower income housing, the majority of the City's lower income housing was allocated to Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 as these sites would be the most suitable for development with lower density housing under state requirements. These Housing Opportunity Sites are consistent with state requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing. Potential impacts related to noise are analyzed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR. Impacts related to air quality are analyzed in Section 3.1 Air Quality and transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. These sections also provide a cumulative impact analysis. Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-3 The commenter stated they urge the City to request that Orange County Transportation Authority increase bus connections and frequent bus routes throughout high-traffic periods and providing additional bike lane connections through planning as a City policy with links to the Los Alamitos' existing and future bike lanes. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration. No further response is necessary. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 34 Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-4 The commenter provided their contact information. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.11 Response to CL-Hsu: Belle Hsu Response to Comment CL-Hsu-1 The commenter stated their appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-Hsu-2 The commenter requested the Project include an analysis of rising insurance costs due to the increased flooding risk from the additional buildings that would be developed as part of the Project. The commenter requested the EIR include an economic evaluation of insurance costs, discuss how insurance costs and availability affect housing affordability, provide assurances that the proposed flooding mitigation will be effective, and consider having developers pay into a flood monitoring/mitigation/insurance fund. Flooding impacts are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental review. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level. The MMRP for the Project would specify how the mitigation measure would be implemented, who would monitor the mitigation, and specify the monitoring frequency. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9), CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 35 earthquakes (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), and wildfire hazards (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. As it is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with insurance are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statues stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. However, the state's site evaluation guidelines are very specific about the feasibility of proposing sites such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed. The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on the environment and as the cost and availability of insurance is not an environmental topic, it does not require analysis in the EIR. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. Response to Comment CL-Hsu-3 The commenter expressed their appreciation for preparation of the Draft EIR and consideration of comment provided. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.12 Response to CL-Miller: Gary Miller Response to Comment CL-Miller-1 The commenter stated that the proposed housing projects on Old Ranch Country Club violate the City's Housing Element that is developed for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risk. The commenter states that the proposed location of the Old Ranch Country Club residential development is risky as it sits at the end of the main runway for the Los Alamitos JFTB just outside of the former crash zone. Additionally, the commenter states a portion of the residential development would remove the general recreational golf driving range and is also under the traffic flight path for aircraft that take off and bank over the area. The commenter states the proposed residential developments were found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), citing a letter from Caltrans DOA from 2022 and noted the residential developments would encroach onto the Los Alamitos JFTB flight path and would pose significant risks to residents living there. See Master Response 2 for a discussion environmental analysis prepared for the ORCC Specific Plan Project. 2.4.13 Response to CL-Perrell1: Susan Perrell Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-1 The commenter expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and commended City staff on the preparation of the document. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 36 Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-2 The commenter states 99 Marina Drive should be evaluated in its own site-specific EIR, similar to the ORCC Specific Plan Project due to its undisturbed nature of the site and the likelihood of the site to support biological resources. The commenter also notes the 99 Marina Drive site provides a large naturalized open space that supports public recreation, biological resources, and large permeable surface area that provides stormwater drainage, infiltration, flood mitigation, and groundwater recharge. The commenter states the Project would impact the site's hydrological features which would increase flooding risk and diminish housing insurability/affordability. The commenter notes the site's recreational features and biological resources have not been adequately described in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the commenter states the site should be zoned at a lower density to be consistent with the adjacent residential uses. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR states that developers/owners are ready to move on development at this site and states that the Draft EIR can entitle them to do so as written. The commenter stated that the Draft EIR states that the ORCC site, unlike other sites, will be reviewed under a separate site specific EIR as the ORCC is a golf course and therefore, is more likely to support biological resources warranting site-specific CEQA review. This statement is incorrect. As identified in the Draft EIR, the ORCC site is being evaluated under its own site-specific EIR as there was already a development application submitted to the City at the time of preparation of the Housing Element Update. The site is not being evaluated in a separate EIR due to its potential biological resources that exist onsite. The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a Specific Plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, City staff made a determination to require an EIR be prepared under CEQA as a part of the entitlement process for the proposed activity. See Master Response 2 for an explanation of the ORCC environmental analysis. Stormwater drainage and groundwater recharge is discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As identified in the section, sources of groundwater recharge for the Basin include Santa Ana River base flow, storm flow, imported water, recycled water, incidental recharge, and in-lieu programs. As identified in the Draft EIR, though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site is undeveloped and contains pervious surfaces and therefore, provides some potential for the site to provide opportunities for groundwater recharge, the OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan identifies the Santa Ana River base flow and recycled water as the largest sources of groundwater recharge for the basin. Therefore, as this site is an extremely small site area compared to the OC Basin and not within the basin recharge areas, the site would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge potential. The commenter states the Project will impact the sites hydrological features which would in turn increase flooding risk and diminish housing insurability/affordability and states these impacts have not been addressed in the EIR. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related issues. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. See Draft EIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for an analysis of how the Project would impact hydrological features. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 37 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately describe the recreational features on the 99 Marina Drive site nor does it adequately assess or mitigate the impacts to these features. Recreation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR. The commenter states the Draft EIR does not fully document the protected species and habitats that may be present on the 99 Marina Drive site and its proposed mitigation measures do not adequately mitigate the loss of habitat. Biological resources are analyzed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR and the Biological Resources Technical Report provided as an appendix to the Draft EIR, two special status plants, one special status reptile, three special status birds, and birds protected under the MBTA were determined to have potential to occur on the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site. However, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. The commenter incorrectly stated that the Draft EIR states that developers and owners are ready to move on development at this site. There is no known or pending development application for this site. See Master Response 1 for a description of the purpose of a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR and the subsequent environmental review process. Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-3 The commenter states that the Draft EIR's first project objective "improve quality of life for current and future residents" conflicts with the third project objective" amend land use standards and designations in the City's Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required RHNA." The commenter states the Draft EIR's significant and unavoidable impacts do not protect and improve quality of life for city residents and would actually diminish quality of life. The commenter provided some suggested solutions such as reducing residential density for sites, mitigating significant impacts to the extent feasible, requiring protection of recreational, hydrological and biological resources, considering construction of bike paths and pedestrian bridges to reduce transportation impacts. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. The Draft EIR has already mitigated any potential impacts to the extent feasible with the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR. The commenter's suggestions are noted and will be considered by the City. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 38 Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-4 The commenter states that mitigating recreation impacts by requiring dedication of land or payment of in- lieu fees is not effective mitigation as there is little or no land with recreational value left to be acquired by these fees. The commenter states the proposed use of fees for “rehabilitating” existing recreational resources cannot adequately mitigate for the further loss of the little remaining potential recreational space, nor will it mitigate the impacts of adding more recreational users to existing overburdened recreational acres. Therefore, the commenter suggests that the EIR should ensure that all recreational impacts resulting from the Project will be required to provide mitigation that is real, meaningful, site- specific, localized, and “like for like.” For sites that currently provide recreational value, like 99 Marina Drive, the site-specific impacts and the site-specific mitigation should be publicly reviewed and decided through a discretionary process. As stated in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future residents. As the City does not currently meet its parks standard requirements and there is little land available in the City for development with a park, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation. The Draft EIR identified mitigation measure PUB-1 which requires subsequent environmental review at a project specific level for individual development projects which will include an analysis of the Project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. The proposed mitigation requires that individual development projects mitigate any potential impacts to the extent feasible. Even with preservation of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites with parks space, the Project would continue to have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation as the City does not have enough available land to offset the existing and future deficit of park space. Additionally, the Draft EIR’s discussion of alternatives included an alternative that proposed dedication of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites for parkland. As identified in Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR identified alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected from further consideration. As identified under Section 4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland of the Draft EIR, the City considered an alternative to reduce the significant impact to parks determination to less than significant by providing more parkland while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. Under this alternative, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to dedicate a portion of the project site for development of onsite parkland. This alternative would require developing the sites at a higher density than was envisioned in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the allocation of a portion of the project site for parkland uses and would require an increase in vertical development to accommodate the higher density required on the same size parcels. As identified in the Draft EIR, the resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area was determined to have a total land area of 104.45-acres; however, only 56.05-acres of the total land area was developable. Therefore, the Draft EIR determined that there would not be enough land available within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area to accommodate the additional parkland required while also providing enough dwelling units to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. As such, this CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 39 alternative was determined to not be feasible and was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible. See Master Response 1 for a discussion on the level of analysis provided in a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR. Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-5 The commenter states while the Draft EIR provides Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources, the Draft EIR does not make adequately clear how impacts to historic character and other historic resources would be adequately avoided or mitigated by MM CUL-1. As identified in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, the Project would not have any direct impacts on historic resources as the Project’s actions would not directly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources due to demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. However, the Project was determined to potentially have indirect impacts on historical resources as it may facilitate future development activities that would directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources located in the within or in the vicinity of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to reduce potential indirect impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. As identified in the mitigation measure, a qualified consultant would analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which would be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-6 The commenter states development of the 99 Marina Drive site would eliminate a large existing stormwater infiltration basin. The commenter states Mitigation Measure HYD-1 should require future development projects to identify and fully mitigate, the extent feasible, site-specific impacts to adjacent streets, parks, and neighborhoods, not just to the “City’s storm drain infrastructure”. The commenter suggests the Draft EIR should more clearly require that any reduction of existing stormwater infiltration capacity and any addition to stormwater runoff volume will need to be completely mitigated by upgrading the City’s already overburdened stormwater system to effectively accommodate those volumes with new development required to accommodate stormwater from a 50-year or 100-year storm, either through on- site avoidance and mitigation measures, or by upgrading the City’s systems to accommodate, or a combination of both. Additionally, the commenter suggests all impacts to water quality and hydrology, along with any proposed mitigation, should be subject to public review, involving the surrounding impacted community Though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site does provide some opportunity for stormwater infiltration for the City due to its undeveloped nature, the site is not an identified infiltration basin and does not provide significant infiltration opportunities. As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 40 measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time. 2.4.14 Response to CL-Perrell2: Susan Perrell Response to Comment CL-Perrell2-1 The commenter provided additional comments in addition to the comment letter previously provided identified as CL-Perrell. The commenter states the 99 Marina Drive site is located in between two areas that have experienced severe flooding in the past and the permeable surface at the site provides stormwater infiltration. The commenter states the loss of this stormwater infiltration area will result in significant flood impacts and therefore, the Project must provide specific, effective, and measurable mitigation for these impacts. The commenter suggests preservation of permeable surface area and installation of stormwater retention basins to mitigate impacts and states the Draft EIR did not adequately describe or mitigate flood related impacts in the Draft EIR and the 99 Marina Drive site should be reviewed under a site specific EIR. Though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site does provide some opportunity for stormwater infiltration for the City due to its undeveloped nature, the site is not an identified infiltration basin and does not provide significant infiltration opportunities. As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time. As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of impacts addressed in a programmatic analysis and subsequent analysis. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or Main Street Program area. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project, such as one that would take place on the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site, would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City pursuant to CEQA laws and guidelines. As there is no specific development application submitted to the City for the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site at this time and implementation of the Project would not result in actual development, only entitlements, the site does not warrant a site specific CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 41 EIR at this time as the proposed development and resulting impacts are unknown. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review. 2.4.15 Response to CL-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-1 The commenter states the Draft EIR should require site specific hydrological studies for any project in or near the areas of the City subject to flooding including Old Town, Bridgeport and College Park East. The commenter states there are already significant deficits to the drainage system and cumulative hydrological impacts from nearby developments such as the Lampson Project would intensify impacts. The commenter states the Draft EIR only considers aspects of the ORCC project but the EIR for the ORCC project indicates that there is an intent to change the drainage flow on the ORCC site which could affect College Park East's ability to get stormwater into the retention basin if not designed with proper consideration for College Park East's stormwater flows. As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time. Cumulative hydrological impacts are also discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. The effects of the Lampson Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project are both analyzed in their own site specific environmental analyses. The commenter states that the EIR for the ORCC Specific Plan Project may be changing the drainage flow on the ORCC site which could affect College Park East's ability to get stormwater into the retention basin. See Master Response 2 for a discussion related to the ORCC site. As the Project only considers the number of residential units the ORCC Specific Plan Project would contribute and analyzes the units at a programmatic level, the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and any associated stormwater infrastructure and hydrological changes are being analyzed in its own specific EIR. Therefore, the Project's Draft EIR does not require an analysis of the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and any associated stormwater infrastructure and hydrological changes and considers any changes at a cumulative impact level. Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-2 The commenter stated placing housing on the current ORCC driving range would result in a loss of recreational opportunity and would result in additional impacts to the already significant and unavoidable impact to recreation. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 42 As outlined in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future residents. As the City does not currently meet its parks standard requirements and there is little land available in the City for development with a park, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation. The Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure PUB-1 which requires subsequent environmental review at a project specific level for individual development projects which will include an analysis of the Project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. The mitigation requires that individual development projects mitigate any potential impacts to the extent feasible. Even with preservation of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites with parks space, the Project would continue to have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation as the City does not have enough available land to offset the existing and future deficit of park space. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible. The driving range at the ORCC site is not identified by the City as one of its recreational amenities that count towards the parks standards ratio, however, it does provide recreational opportunities to city residents on a fee basis. Additionally, the ORCC Specific Plan Project as currently proposed is not removing the driving range, but is rather reconfiguring it and therefore would not result in a lost amenity. See Master Response 2 for a discussion related to the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s environmental analysis. The impacts that would result from the loss of the driving range are being analyzed in the site specific EIR that is being prepared for the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-3 The commenter states cumulative impacts of development north of I-405 need to be studied carefully as the Lampson Project and ORCC would add traffic in the area which is also utilized by College Park East residents. The commenter states site plan for traffic needs to be completed for each project proposed at the sites for site circulation and cumulative impacts to local congestion. Cumulative transportation impacts, including those from cumulative developments such as the Lampson Project and other cumulative developments listed in Table 3.0-3 of the Draft EIR, are discussed in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads, like the Lampson Project, would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. OPR’s Technical Advisory states that “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa” (OPR 2018 page 6). Therefore, since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation related to transportation, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable transportation impact. As the specific development of Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area is unknown at this time, there is no site circulation studies that can be completed until a specific development application has been submitted for those sites. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. Once specific development applications are submitted for the site, the City would determine the level of subsequent environmental review required for the individual project and if required, future developments would require a project level assessment of potential CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 43 impacts, including impacts to transportation and circulation. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements and Master Response 3 for a discussion of the cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-4 The commenter states the addition of housing units would have an impact on the current utility infrastructure and though developers would be required to pay their fair share of required improvements, the City and its taxpayers would bear the cost to perform capital improvements and would result in a financial impact to the City. The Project's impacts to utility infrastructure are provided in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the preparation of supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed site would require improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities to meet the state, County, and local standards and requirements to serve the specific site location. The mitigation requires that if improvements are required due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the specific site location, the proposed development may be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. Though this may in turn require the City to complete capital improvements, funds collected from impact fees would fund the construction of capital improvements. The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on the environment and does not require an analysis of potential fiscal impacts a project may have. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-5 The commenter states placing housing on the ORCC golf course would result in safety impacts from the Los Alamitos JFTB. Additionally, the commenter states in 2022, Caltrans Aeronautics showed concern about the Shops at Rossmoor and Old Ranch Town Center which is located near the military runways of JFTB at the time of the City's overrule decision of inconsistency with the AELUP for JFTB (the letter from Caltrans Aeronautics is provided as an attachment to the comment letter). The review was completed when a 35 foot height limit for the City was in place and the commenter states that developments with the new zoning are anticipated to be 2 to 5 stories high, which is an increase in height from what was reviewed in 2022 by the ALUC. The commenter states future projects proposed at the ORTC and Shops at Rossmoor could result in tall residential towers and will need to be reviewed by the ALUC for potential light and glare issues, as well as aircraft safety and noise. Therefore, the commenter states the Draft EIR CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 44 cannot guarantee that there are no significant impacts related to airport safety for people living and working in the area of the airport. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project does not propose any actual development on Housing Opportunity Site 4 - Shops at Rossmoor or Housing Opportunity Site 5 - Old Ranch Town Center sites at this time and certification of the Project and Draft EIR would only change the proposed land use of the identified sites. As there are no actual developments proposed at this time on the sites, the potential impacts that could result from actual development is unknown. As a General Plan amendment, the Housing Element must be submitted to ALUC for review, as does the associated Zoning Code Ordinance update. Further, as identified in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, future developments proposed under the Project that are located within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB that require any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan and any proposed changes to a zoning ordinance or building regulation are subject to review by the ALUC. See Master Response 2 for a discussion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project's environmental analysis Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-6 The commenter expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to provide comments. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. 2.4.16 Response to CL-Lasser: Tom Lasser Response to Comment CL-Lasser-1 The commenter provided information on their background. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CL-Lasser-2 The commenter stated the two developments proposed adjacent to the Los Alamitos JFTB airfield on the end of the main runway and on Lampson would be a hazard and encroaches on flight operations at Los Alamitos. The commenter suggests direct communication with the aviation subject matter experts on the airfield staff to learn about the impacts of encroachment on flight operations. The commenter requests these developments be reconsidered and the airfield be taken into consideration. The two developments the commenter references are assumed to be the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. As stated in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR, housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA and are considered pipeline projects. Therefore, the Housing Element Update identified ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline project CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 45 towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The 167 dwelling units proposed through the ORCC Specific Plan Project are programmatically evaluated in the Draft EIR. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This Project’s Draft EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project and there is no nexus. Rather, the Project’s Draft EIR evaluated the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. Therefore, the location of the proposed residential developments and its potential safety impacts related to location near the JFTB and associated land use conflicts are being evaluated in a standalone EIR by the City and is not required to be analyzed in this Draft EIR. Additionally, the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to review by ALUC. See Master Response 2 for a discussion of ORCC Specific Plan Project's impact analysis as it relates to the Draft EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report Revisions to the Draft EIR 46 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section includes minor edits to the Draft EIR. These modifications resulted from minor clarifications and staff-initiated changes. Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. Changes are provided in revision marks (underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text). 3.2 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR There were no minor changes or edits required to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report References 47 4.0 REFERENCES City of Seal Beach. 2024. City of Seal Beach 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted February 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cle an-compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed July 2025. City of Seal Beach. 2025. City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH 2023110425. PDF. Appendix A EQCB Meeting Transcript Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Chair Perrell: Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 5th special environmental quality control board meeting. Um before we start, we should probably introduce our our new board member, Belle Hsu, and she's from District 4. And welcome. Thank you. And I'll now call the meeting to order. Could we have a pledge of allegiance? Don, would you like to lead that? Horning: Yeah, I'm happy to. Hand over heart. Begin. All: Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Perrell: Director Smittle, will you please call the roll? Director Smittle: Thank you board member Villanueva is currently absent. Hopefully on his way. Board Member Depew? Depew: here. Director Smittle: Chair Perell? Chair Perrell: I’m Here. Director Smittle: Board member Hsu? Showalter: Here. Director Smittle: And Vice Chair Horning? Horning: Here. Director Smittle: Thank you. Chair Perrell: At this time, members of the public may address the environmental quality control board regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the board cannot discuss or take action on any items that are not on the agenda unless authorized by law. These members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come forward to the microphone and state their name for the record. All speakers will be limited to a period of five minutes. Any comments specific to tonight's EIR for the housing element zoning code update may be reserved until after the presentation has been provided later tonight. We'll offer public comment then as well. Um so you can speak now or wait till we um get through the presentation. Is there anyone that would like to speak now in general? Okay. Has staff received any written comments for tonight? Director Smittle: Thank you, chair. There have been no written comments so far. Chair Perrell: Does anyone before we leave this um part of the agenda, does anyone want to speak? No. Okay. All right. Let's go to the agenda approval by motion of the Environmental Quality Control Board. This is the time to notify the public of any changes to our agenda, rearrange the order of the agenda, and provide an opportunity for any member of the board or staff to request an item to be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Horning: I would like to make that motion. Chair Perrel: Great, could I get a second, please. Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Depew: I second. Chair Perrell: Thank you, Director Smittle will you please call the roll? Director Smittle: Yes, thank you. Board Member Villanueva Villanueva: I Director Smittle: Board Member Depew: Depew: Here Director Smittle: Chair Perrell Chair Perrell: I Director Smittle: Board Member Hsu Hsu: I Director Smittle: and Vice Chair Horning Horning: Yes Director Smittle: All votes Yes, passed unanimously. Thank you. Chair Perrell: Item A is the approval of the March 19, 2025 environmental quality control board minutes on the consent calendar. That is item B is the approval of the April 16th, 2025 Environmental Quality Control Board and Recreation, Parks, and Commission minutes. May I have a motion in a second to approve those items on the consent calendar? Horning: Yes, I would like to make the motion to approve them. Chair Perrell: And a second please. Depew: I will second them. Chair Perrell: Thank you, Director Smittle, will you please call the roll. Director Smittle: Thank you. Board Member Villanueva Villanueva: yes Director Smittle: Board Member Depew: Depew: Here Director Smittle: Chair Perrell Chair Perrell: yes Director Smittle: Board Member Hsu Hsu: yes Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Director Smittle: and Vice Chair Horning Horning: Yes Director Smittle: Thank you, unanimously approved. Chair Perrell: There are no continued items, so we'll go to scheduled matters. Item C is to solicit comments regarding the content of the environmental impact report for the housing element and zoning code updates. Director Smittle is there a presentation this evening? Director Smittle: Thank you very much, chair, and environmental quality control board members. And I apologize. I'm hoping the uh projector is going to wake up here a little bit, but if all else fails, the the TV there looks fairly clear. And I would like to let um the audience and anyone watching know that this presentation will be available on our website after this evening. Just Yeah, perfect. Thank you. We're going to start with just a quick reminder of um why we're here this evening. So, we are looking at an environmental document that relates to our housing element and zoning code update. The housing element is a chapter within our general plan and it identifies our local housing needs and provides a work plan for us to strategize to achieve um reaching those housing goals and housing needs that that are in part assigned to us. It's required under state law and we go through this process every eight years. This is the sixth cycle. So this is the sixth time we have been through a housing element cycle. We do this for a number of reasons. First of all, the law says that we have to. It's not optional. It's required to be within our general plan and we are required to update it. Having a certified housing element, which is the end goal, does provide us access to funding um particularly as it relates to state grants for transportation or even um in some cases federal grants that come to us through the county such as our CDBG program that takes place in Leisure World for the bathroom renovation programs. There are local benefits because we are able to um supply housing as it is needed. And then of course if we don't comply, we do put ourselves at a legal risk for lawsuits for for non-compliance. And there are different ways that that the state can carry forward um those actions if we remain out of compliance. There are also private remedies if we do not have an approved certified housing element for builders to come in and build projects that have a streamlined process regardless of what our existing zoning is. The RHNA is a big part of why we're here tonight. So, the regional housing needs allocation is a pretty lengthy process that is initiated in advance of the housing element cycle. This has been going since 1980 and each year it's it's a little bit different. The allocation process is different. The formulas they use are different. But the end result is that every community, every jurisdiction is is assigned RHNA target. It's the number of housing units that we need to be able to accommodate within our housing element and within our community. This process, as I mentioned, is a little bit different every year. And this last cycle was significantly different than it had been in previous cycles. And there are a couple big parts of that. The first is that this time the state not only looked forward for future housing need but included existing demand. Previously it was a forward-looking projection. This time it was the compilation of both existing pentup demand for housing as well as a forecast of the future. So a much larger number was the starting point of the RHNA allocation. It then filters down through our um regional transportation planning agency which is SCAG and SCAG um determines the formula by which each jurisdiction within SCAG is allocated a number. So you can see in those historical look there the starting number for SCAG was much bigger this time around and as a result our allocation was much bigger. Last time we were assigned to find room for two units and this time it was almost 1300 1,243 units. That allocation does come in tiers Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs based on affordability for the housing. So this is um our assigned allocation for very low, low, moderate and above moderate housing units. Anna Radonich: Hi everybody. My name is Anna Radnich. I'm with Stantech. We're the environmental consultant for preparation of this EIR. So your housing element in the housing element update includes five kind of buckets. the updated housing goals, policies, and programs, your site inventory. So for Seal Beach, the site inventory is comprised of eight housing opportunity sites, ADUs, and any pipeline projects. And these are all identified units that the city has identified to meet the 1243 RHNA allocation. Of the eight sites, six would require rezoning. And of those six, five would be rezoned to the new designation mixeduse residential high density. Additionally, the housing element includes policies related to AFFH or affirmatively furthering fair housing. So these are policies to ensure that there's no discrimination in housing. Here's a list of the eight housing opportunity sites that are identified in your housing element update currently. I'll just let you read through these, but these are the eights that are evaluated throughout our document. Here's a figure showing those eight. So, this figure, I know it's a little hard to see. The numbers, you could kind of see it. The numbers one through eight correlate to the previous slide. Sites one through eight. The blue portion in the bottom of the figure is the main street program which is a program identified in your housing element. And up in the upper right is purple and that's the residential portion of the old ranch country club pipeline project. Director Smittle: If I could interject real quick just just so we're clear with these sites. So um our our sites kind of fall into these different buckets. We have the traditional housing opportunity sites. Those are in the red. Our main street um program that is not a um housing opportunity site, but we do agree in the housing element to rezone for or to amend the specific plan to allow for residential uses above the ground floor. So, the second story. And then finally, the Old Ranch Country Club. It is on its own path. It does have its own EIR and it is a pipeline site within our housing element. So we have kind of these different buckets but at the end of the day these sites do represent where we are essentially making room for housing as a part of this housing element process. Anna Radonich: Great. And so to follow up on what Alexa just said, this is what is evaluated in the EIR and it's exactly what she just outlined. The EIR evaluates the housing opportunity sites, Main Street program, and the Old Ranch Country Club residential portion of that pipeline project. And here are the buildout assumptions. So, you can see in the first column, it's the type housing opportunity, ADUs, Main Street. What's been, I'll use identified in the site inventory in your housing element is the next column. In the third column is the buildout assumptions for the dwelling units that we're assuming for the EIR purposes, which Trevor will get into in the next couple slides. And then the areas, so the parcel versus the developable portion of the parcel. So that's what this is outlining. Trevor Macenski: Yeah. One thing I just uh Hi everybody, my name is Trevor Minsky. I'm also with Stantech. thing I want to point out is that as you'll notice the total number of units is actually greater than the regional housing need allocation. Right? And the purpose for doing that is to make sure that we provide the city with flexibility in the event that there's certain applications that come forward on one of these eight sites because again this is a higher level evaluation. So we don't necessarily know hey site one is going to absolutely guarantee generate x number of units. So we provide a larger buffer to provide the city with flexibility and we do that because there's certain laws called no net loss in California which Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs make it incredibly hard for the city to kind of retroactively go back and identify new opportunity sites after this process. Anna Radonich: And it's a larger buffer in the CEQA analysis not in us identifying more more units for you. So Trevor. Trevor Macenski: so uh for those that haven't ever participated in an environmental review process or a CEQA process, there's basically four primary objectives, right? The the whole intent of CEQA is it's a disclosure statute. We want to make sure that all the discretionary boards and bodies that are involved in a particular action fill in form. They understand the implications related to what the potential impacts are going to be. The second and almost most importantly is to engage with the community at large that the boards and bodies represent to make sure that they feel informed related to the potential environmental impacts and disclose those potential impacts so that there is no uh you know behind closed doors conversation about what the implications are going to be and that this is a transparent process for the city as the lead agency. And lastly, it's to make sure that you can either avoid or reduce potential impacts that you identify through this analysis. The objective of the statute is to try to reduce impacts and impacts on the environment. So if there's a mechanism to mitigate them or come up with alternatives, that's what happens through CEQA. Um this is an important flowchart for uh the public. Um if you remember quite some time ago back in uh November and December of 23, we actually issued something called a notice of preparation. That notice of preparation is a notice to the community saying, "Hey, we're starting the race of this environmental impact report. Uh, and that NOP establishes the baseline or the regulatory framework for which this document will be prepared." Uh, in which case we worked with the city staff and our team to put together the draft environmental impact report and it is now released for the public for a 45-day review period. Um, just to be clear, the draft has all the information. for the community that's watching, make sure that if you are interested that you don't just click on the final that might be coming up in the future. Please review the draft. It's where all the details are. Um our 45-day public comment period, we're in the middle of that now and it ends in on June 23rd. And so one of the reasons we are here this evening is to make sure that we can solicit feedback and comments from the public to make sure that their comments are taken into consideration before we put together the final the project final EIR is an amalgamation of comments in which we receive from the public as well as responses to those comments. We are statutorily required to uh respond to comments in which we receive related to the merits of the environmental analysis. So there is a few slides at the end which we'll try to give you some guidance on what's the best way to try to comment in this process. um after we respond to those comments and if there's any other editorial or um minor changes that need to be made that all goes into the final EIR and that entire package is what is the environmental review record which is presented to the discretionary body for consideration. Um one thing to make note of is the type of environmental review document. In this case this is a policy consideration. Policy considerations often undergo programmatic environmental review. If you have seen project level environmental review, it's probably a little bit more tangible. It is like, hey, on site A, we're going to build 10 units. And you evaluate all the unique nuances and impacts associated with that particular project location, its construction impacts, its operational impacts. When you do a programmatic environmental review, you're actually coming up with a set of assumptions which we talked about earlier related to the ultimate buildout and identifying kind of larger inconsistencies or uh programmatic impacts which would result to the community from this decision. Here's just a simple high overview of the comparison of the Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs two. Um, one thing that I will uh mention on this slide is that the intent of preparing a programmatic environmental review is actually to ensure the city greater flexibility moving forward after the housing element so that there is an opportunity for the city to utilize this document for uh as a starting off point for future environmental reviews for subsequent entitlement applications. When you prepare a CEQA document, we all have to play by the same rules. The rules are established in our California public resources code under appendix G. The appendix G checklist is a resource consideration which identifies I think it's 22 in total resource categories of which there are individual questions are in each resource category and we have to answer every single one of those. So, um, that's one of the reasons why our documents a thousand pages, but, uh, in doing so, we identified potential issues that were scoped out as part of the notice of preparation process. And so, we want to point those out to you here this evening. So, if you try to go look for forestry resources chapters within the ER, it's not going to be there because as part of the NOP, we scoped it out because of the lack of a and forestry resources within the city, right? So it is a scoping process which the statute encourages to ensure that you can focus on what's important. Okay. So this is the ITEST chart. Uh the itest chart identifies uh the resources where we've identified impacts where we've identified impacts that require mitigation and where we've identified impacts that have required mitigation but we couldn't get them to a less than significant level thus resulting in something called a significant and unavoidable impact. As you'll know, there are five significant and unavoidable impacts that are identified in the EIR. Three of which actually started with what I'll use the phrase a compromised baseline in the sense that the city had already previously identified that that was an issue for that resource. A good and easy tangible example to kind of wrap your head around is related to recreation resources. So, the city has a threshold related to recreational space per populace and currently this Yeah. And currently the city didn't meet that and the city didn't meet it before we started. So for uh us to make a determination that would have a less than significant impact would uh be disingenuous. So as a result there's impacts that are in the document that started with a compromised baseline and thus the document reflects that. Anna Radonich: And just so these tables that we're including on these slides are all in the executive summary portion of the EIR. So you don't need to worry about quickly. And that's I know it's small. Trevor Macenski: Yeah, that's actually a great point for the community that's watching as well as the commission here is that the executive summary is kind of like the cliff's notes. Yeah. So, if you ever want to have a conversation about or somebody approaches you with a question related to hey, is this going to have impacts on X? That's where you go and look, it identifies each of the resource areas and questions and you can identify just like this which impact will result in a mitigation and then subsequently it'll provide a reference to where you can go read in detail how we got to that information. Um, one thing that's incredibly important related to this particular decision in the environmental review is cumulative impacts. Because this is a multifaceted project which has multiple sites in different geographies, the potential for cumulative impacts to result in an additive impact are very important. Cumulative impacts underneath the CEQA statute uh for all intents and purposes are you might have project A, B and C, but you have to additively evaluate them in a holistic manner to determine if the cumulative nature of those individual minuscule actions would result in an impact which is greater than the individual project. If you can imagine that really comes into play when it comes to like resource consideration. Think of like water supply or think of like uh endangered species habitats, right? You might have a individual projects which take a little bit of the pie but overall you might have a larger Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs impact on that particular habitat or your long-term water supply etc. So we have a full cumulative analysis which is identified and identifies all the projects which we evaluated as well as those within the city and the surrounding area. As I had mentioned these are your five significant unavoidable impact areas that are identified in your EIR. Um, it is okay to have significant unavoidable impacts, but you can't give up on the analysis is what the statute says. You have to functionally try to mitigate all impacts to a less than significant level. So, in each of those resource considerations, you will see a proposed mitigation and if it worked, it would go to less than significant. If that mitigation didn't get below the significance threshold, that's when you have a significant unavoidable impact. Um, for the city as the lead agency to move forward, you have to then adopt something called overriding considerations. Those overriding considerations are a series of specific statute questions that you have to answer to ensure that the city has done their best to mitigate all potential environmental effects. Alternatives, so beyond mitigation in an EIR the other method in which we try to uh reduce impacts is through the development of alternatives. Um, beyond the no project alternative, there was actually two other alternatives which we considered prior to even moving forward with the analysis to ensure that we had the ability to try to reduce impacts. Um, at the end of the day through the alternatives analysis, we determined that the no project alternative is the only feasible alternative and it also is the environmentally superior alternative. There's a unique thing here related to the statute in which you have an EIR evaluation which identifies the no project is the environmentally superior you automatically default to the proposed project. Anna Radonich: And can I just add so uh when Trevor just said that we identified two alternatives that were considered and rejected before moving forward with the analysis is before moving forward with the project alternative analysis because you don't your alternatives and your project alternatives are derived based on the impacts that are identified in the analysis of the main portion of your report. They're not. Trevor Macenski: just good ideas. Anna Radonich: Yeah, they're not ideas that we just think of ahead of time so we can scratch them off the list. They're derived to try to reduce impacts that we identified. So those five significant unavoidable impacts. That's what drove the alternatives for this project. Trevor Macenski: Great point. Thank you. We had talked about the environmentally superior alternative and the nuance related to the fact that when it is a no project alternative, it basically defaults to the proposed action. Um that's all that this slide identifies. And the big thing here is because when you evaluate alternatives, they have to be consistent with your project objectives. Your project objectives are the intent or the motivating reason for considering this action. Anna Radonich: So now that we know what the CEQA document is covering, we're here at tonight's meeting. And then how do we move forward from here? How do you as members of the EQCB, how do members of the public stay informed on this entire process? So, the draft EIR is posted on the city's website. The link is provided on the slide deck and the slide deck will be available made available to the public after this meeting. The best way to provide comment because we want to receive your comment. We want to know what you might know about this project that we may be missed in the analysis or you feel isn't quite robust. The best way to do that is to send an electronic email basically to Alexa. She will gather everything, send it to us. We are required to provide responses as Trevor had said earlier and should you choose to send written snail mail comments that address is here to city hall as well. Effective Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs commenting really is ideal. Um there's definitely going to be members of the public who maybe don't like the idea of more housing in Seal Beach. We definitely welcome those comments. But in terms of CEQA our responsibility is to respond on the merits of our analysis. So we will note a comment, but what's helpful for us is if you could identify, like I said, did we maybe miss something? Um maybe focus on the completeness. Was there editorial comments are great really, but you know, is there something maybe we missed? Um maybe and so here's an example of you know I think the EIR is not complete because you know X Y and Z. Maybe you drive a certain route regularly and you've identified a traffic impact that maybe we didn't include or you feel it wasn't quite robust enough or maybe you know there's flooding in a certain area of the city that wasn't called out in our document. Those are the comments that are helpful because we are required, as Trevor said, as part of the process in preparation of the final EIR. We are required to respond to those comments and either point the reader to where that is included in our analysis or to include supplemental analysis. So, our recommendation tonight is that we're receiving public comment um during this meeting here, this community meeting tonight. No action is being taken on the draft EIR tonight or on the project. This is simply an opportunity to provide comment to encourage the public to provide comment. Trevor Macenski: And the only other thing that I would offer to the folks that are watching and the folks in the room here is that the intent is not for us to try to rebut any of the comments which are presented here this evening. We're here to provide clarity of where you might be able to find that information. uh but we are going to be more actively listening to make sure that we're documenting the comments that for those that have had the opportunity to review and read it and then there'll be a formal response in that final EIR. So with that I'll hand it back over to Alexa to see if there's anything else. Director Smittle: Thank you Anna and Trevor. That concludes our presentation for this evening. So chair I'll turn the floor back over to you. Thank you. Chair Perrell: Thank you very much. It was very very helpful presentation. Um before we um dive in, I'd just like to make one more comment about public comments. Is that okay? Um so a good comment. I'm not an attorney, but um as far as I understand, the CEQA process kind of um focuses down over time through all these steps, it it kind of narrows the opportunity for your comment to matter. In other words, if we get through all the process of the NOP, the comments on that, the draft, the comments on that, the final, the comments on that, the project gets approved, and then you go to court to sue the city because they they messed up this one of the studies and they forgot to the sewer is broken or whatever, the judge doesn't really have to listen to you. And the further the longer you wait to to submit your comments, the less it counts, the less it's going to be addressed in general. So now is the time in the draft EIR if you have concerns and you have comments, now is the time to get them in the record because you will most influence the final draft and you will get yourself into the process. And if anyone says, well, where was where were you three years ago when we started this, you could have brought that up then. So it's just really helpful and really important that you do it now by June 23rd. Trevor Macenski: That is correct, yup. Chair Perrell: Okay. Thank you. Um so now um is the time for the board to discuss. Um I think that some of us have comments that we want to discuss, but this thing is such a beast. It's a nice beast, a friendly beast, but anyone has been through this document. It's thousands of pages and it's kind of complicated. So I thought I would like to ask y'all, the board uh members to make some suggestions about how best Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs tonight we can review this. Um, I'm thinking maybe we take turns and we discuss each item brought up. Um, you know, one district at a time. Um, I'm thinking maybe if we have a general concern about the the overall EIR, we might address that first and get down to any specific sites or any specific issues after and just go around and maybe we'll have time and energy to address your one number one, number two, or number three concern. But I'd like to hear other is it okay? I'd like to hear other suggestions on on a process for tonight to for us to kind of share our concerns, our questions, and our comments. Trevor Macenski: Chair, if it's helpful, I have a recommendation. Yes. Having done this at least once before. No, I'm just kidding. Um usually, you're on the right path. If you can uh kind of structure your comments in a sense of like clarifying remarks about maybe what the project is and is not, right, the project description. um additional questions about maybe resource considerations. Maybe you have something about air or traffic and then overall maybe uh analysis to where you might have a connection from one section to another or you want uh to understand about cumulates or alternatives, but making sure that and it's inevitable that you're going to hear something that one of your commissioners is going to say. You're going to be like, "Oh, well, you know, let's talk about water." And then water talks about wetlands and wetlands talks about drainage and you know they're covered in a lot of different topics but the bucket methodology is probably the most effective and then that way you can kind of move on. Yeah. Chair Perrell: Yeah. Okay. I that makes sense. Does that make sense to everyone? I'm seeing some nodding here. Um, I still think it might be nice to talk about general before we get into site specific just general how the document's structured and um overall. Thank you. So, um, if you all agree, let's start and we'll just go around since we're in order of district. Oh, That's five. I guess doesn't matter. We could start with with board member. Okay, we'll start with board member. Horning: I'd be happy to start. Um, my concern is that we have um some focused comments for particular districts and of course I'm included with Leisure World. So um and Leisure World's kind of a city unto itself. So I was just wondering the mechanics of actually who needs to respond if the response is going to be needed. Is that the Golden Rain Foundation or is it the individual HOAs? It's just like a procedural kind of question or is it individual people you know shareholders of that and um we talked about the merits of analysis and I also wanted to talk about the limits of the analysis in that um the things that we have knowledge of that was in this report had to do with the uh the significant impact areas those five air pollution greenhouse gases public services recreation and transportation well there's also also um the observation that there have been doing the no on-site testing to verify if there's not anything else and I understand that that's a later part of this particular process but if we know about something right now say one of our sites opportunity site that we should reveal that now or is that something that's going to be done automatically in the future by some developer. Trevor Macenski: yeah that is a perfect example of where all commoners can add additional value because this is the community that you live in every single day, and if you understand oh hey there is a particular we'll use Anna's analogy related to like storm water you know in heavy rain events the southeast corner of this particular site always gets more than enough amount of flooding that takes place or something or if there's a historic condition which might not be well documented but people are aware of all that type of information is incredibly important to get into the analysis. EQCB- Horning- 1 EQCB- Horning -2 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Horning: Yeah, one of the other things is the the determination of if rezoning is going to be needed or no rezoning and uh leisure world at that particular site there is no rezoning is needed. So that's a target for somebody some developer at least that's what I would assume. So if we have information that leads us to believe that this was a site that we didn't develop for a particular reason and I have no actual documented knowledge of that but I've heard people say that. So um that would be a part that need to be consideration in the future. So I just wanted to uh identify as to what entity in leisure world as an example how that how those comments should be formed and presented. Trevor Macenski: I'll offer the technical response and then I'll look to Alexa for maybe some clarifying community input is that the answer is yes. Whether it comes from a certain level or a board or even just a quadrant of the community or representation of five or six neighbors or an individual at the end of the day we have we treat those comments with the same level of weight and actually the statute's very clear and that the public has a vested interest. So public comments are actually valued even more than like agency comments in certain instances. Horning: So yeah, and then my final comment has to do with there's three other entities um cities uh Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach, and they're act each having their own um housing element studies. So um how does these all fit together or does does this particular study just focus on these opportunity sites? Trevor Macenski: Um this particular environmental review focuses on the opportunity sites for the city of Seal Beach. The regional blueprint model or the sustainable community strategy which is prepared by the regional no looks at kind of the larger implications of growth across the region and that's the process which identifies how they come up with the regional housing need allocation for each of the communities and the in theory in theory the investment related to infrastructure funding and growth and population should align such that the state and the federal level are providing dollars and in and support to communities that are uh planning to grow and accommodate additional population, when you and I say that in theory because it's Horning: so when you talk about cumulative impact that is only within Seal Beach and the various projects rather than all three of the Trevor Macenski: um your intuition is uh very common but not incredibly accurate. Uh in our in our uh cumulative impact section there's actually a table which provides the analysis footprint related to each of the resources. So a good example would be uh for air quality it's actually the air quality basin which is encapsulate greater than the city's geographic footprint right but for noise for example the city has a very specific noise ordinance and that applies to the city's jurisdiction Horning: that's all the comments I have at this moment . Anna Radonich: would it be okay can I add a couple things Trevor I think it might be helpful if we um maybe explain we do the programmatic EIR are what happens if a project comes in and the type of CEQA excuse me environmental review that would need to happen and then also the baseline for cumulative or future projects maybe in a nearby city if they change. Yeah. EQCB- Horning- 2 cont. EQCB- Horning-3 EQCB- Horning-3 cont. Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Trevor Macenski: So if you um if it's okay by the chair to cover you okay the um the idea around this is that we had talked about the issuance of the NOP kind of starting this race and once the NOP is issued it actually sets the regulatory framework in which the EIR is prepared. So if you could think about it you could constantly always be trying to catch up with changes and modifications that take place within a particular municipality but at the time and the NOP is actually released is a time and when kind of the book ends get fixed for everything that we have to consider. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't projects going on in neighboring communities at that particular point in time that we might have already identified in our cumulative analysis list. But if those other projects in another jurisdiction decide that we get bigger or get smaller, their own individual environmental review would have to be supplemented to account for those changes. Um, but as far as our cumulative analysis, you'll see in that list that we document all the projects that were contemplated and we did we developed that in consultation with the surrounding communities and staff and everyone's understanding. Yeah. Chair Perrell: That answer your question for now. Okay. Belle. Hsu: So, since I'm new here, I'm really like I basically reviewed the best I could. Um, tried to understand what the scope of, you know, this project is, what we're trying to accomplish. Um, I have some preliminary questions. Um, I guess what struck me is, um, something I thought about because just as a homeowner here, I've had trouble getting um, new home insurance when I'm shopping around for home insurance. Um, so is insurance something that's being considered when we talk about all these different sites? Um, I saw that flood insurance was not supposed to be within the scope of CEQA. Um, but just overall homeowners insurance is such a issue these days and its affordability. Um, the reason why I'm shopping around for insurance is because it's it I found it uh my current insurance to have shot up a lot. So, um, I was very limited though in what I could get. So, I it's just something that I am concerned about when it comes to future housing care. Um, especially, you know, low income housing. It's very important that people can get insurance. So I that's something that um I thought about Perrell: I would like to just suggest um that insurance is part of the first two objectives in the EIR. Protect and improve quality of life for current future residents. You're uninsured and you have and your house floods, you have no quality of life. Um and encourage new housing for households at all income levels. Well, people that aren't rich can't afford expensive insurance, so I think that's totally in scope. I But I'll ask Alexa what she thinks. Director Smittle: Thank you, chair. Um, I'll I'll ask Trevor to speak to the um specifics of the CEQA guidelines as they relate to insurance, but your point is well taken.Um, there have been insurance companies picking up and leaving California entirely, and it is very challenging. There have been attempts at the state level to address some of these challenges, but as it um as it is looked at through CEQA, it is not included as a part of the analysis. Trevor Macenski: Yeah. And I do want to provide you because I think you're you're again your intuition spot on, right? You're wanting to know like, hey, did we account for these forces which could cause implications with this decision? and the forces and the resources are accounted for and that comes related to hydrology and flooding and the implications that hydrology and flooding would have on these particular locations or earthquakes or wildfire hazards. All those evaluations have been completed related to these sites. Now to speak to the risk and fees associated with insurance as Alexa had mentioned we are silent on that. The statute kind of stays out of the market effects and al also the EQCB- Hsu-1 EQCB- Perrell-1 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs economics of that. However, what I will speak to is that before these sites were even getting to this level, the state's site evaluation guidelines is very specific about uh the feasibility of proposing sites that are wholly contained or have risk related to flooding. Uh so the state actually doesn't allow you to do those things anymore. Uh previously it was not as strenuous and um diligent in evaluating them. So you might have had a site that was like, "Oh yeah, it's 25 acres, but it really can only be developed with two acres because the rest is in a flood zone or something like that." So the state has gotten a lot more uh restrictive and even allowing those to consider through the process. But your comments are incredibly valid. It is a force in the market which every community is dealing with. Hsu: Yeah, I think that's all I have at this time. Chair Perrell: Okay, my turn. Um, first of all, just quickly, I do want to commend staff and Stantech. Um, you guys built a pretty sturdy document um that should withstand a lot of of scrutiny. Um, very thorough, well organized, very a lot of clarity and uh it was it was clear you tried to address the comments you received after the NOP. So, so thank you for that. Um I do have a general comment and then later I hope we'll have another round here to address a more um specific comment. Is that okay with everyone? Um so our project objectives which we were just talking about um and you know insurance would be a way of saying affordability I think you know you could phrase it under that but um so the objectives that we have while they're all good objectives um two of them seem to be in direct conflict with each other and that is the first the first project objective to protect and improve quality of life for households and then the third objective to amend land use standards and designations in the city code specific plans general plans to comply with the state laws and the RHNA. So why are these conflicting? Well, because according to the draft environmental impact report, complying, you know, building that, 1243 new housing units, meeting that RHNA will create many significant and supposedly unavoidable impacts in several impact categories. So, we're going to result in a project that will not protect and improve the quality of life for the city's households. So, those two objectives are really in in somewhat conflict and somewhat opposition with each other. So, what do we do about that? You know, well CEQA guidance tells us that when that happens, when objectives oppose or conflict, we must balance them as best we can. And so we evaluate project alternatives that meet some of those objectives um and have less impacts or we find overriding cons considerations to convince ourselves to justify ourselves that you know we're combashing some of the objectives in order to achieve some of the others and and we have to ensure that we're mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. So we have this balanced meeting of the objectives. So, you know, if we had a project objective to make our air cleaner and then we had another project objective to increase air pollution emission sources, how would we balance those, right? Um, and it would be hard, but you know, we would we would try to do that with alternatives and and mitigation and considerations, but which one would we try the hardest to meet? Would we try and meet the the cleaner air or the more polluted air? Right? Would we and and that's the question I ask us here to to think about would we go for the quality of life in Seal Beach for the residents or adherence to a policy political driven policy. So if we have to balance gosh and we have to air a little bit on one side I I hope we will think about airing on the side of quality of life for Sil Beach residents. So, so I just this general concern that the draft environmental impact report, it fails to meet that number one objective, it fails a lot. It fails pretty hard. It falls on its face for meeting that first objective to protect and improve the quality of life for households in Seal Beach. I ask us to consider a little bit more balancing. How can we do that? we can mitigate more. Um we can consider a slightly EQCB- Purrell-2 EQCB- Purrell-3 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs lower density or we consider um reducing flooding by putting in um permeable pavement or consider reducing transportation by requiring bike lanes to go more bike lanes or whatever we do. I'm sure it's all very creative. There's a lot of things that haven't been proposed yet in the draft that we could maybe think to mitigate. So we we put the weight a little bit more weight on quality of life project objective, you know, because I just I think it's got the short end of the stick right now here. I think we have a little a little tiny bit more work to do. Okay. And I I would like to hear from from y'all on that. Um the other board members if you have any thoughts on that. Villanueva: I did have a comment and I very much appreciate your comment about quality of life and the potential impact that you know some of these rezoning allocations would have on the quality of life of existing residents. Um and I think that's very true. I would also ask that you know everybody consider you know maybe a broader definition of quality of life. If we have if we were to increase the amount of folks residing in Seal Beach we would have more you know our property tax revenue would go up. You know as an impact for perhaps just District 1. We would have more activity on Main Street. if you walked up and down Main Street, it's, you know, there's some vacant shops here and there. So, you know, I just I think we need to take a very holistic view and a very broad view of what, you know, what we define as quality of life. Um, and just making sure that, you know, we're taking into account that, you know, quality of life doesn't necessarily mean, you know, I have, you know, room on, you know, every side of my property to agree plant a few trees or, you know, what have you, Chair Perrell: right? And and yet, you know, significant and unavoidable impacts or significant impacts, you know, that does reduce the quality of life and we have a lot of those in here. So, yeah, a balance. We need to balance and be holistic. And I just think it's worth considering if we've done the best job we can on that. And so that's just my general comment and your comments. Depew: My turn. Huh? Chair Perrell: Yes, Mike. On your comment or just mine? No. Oh, no. On on your comments. Okay. Unless you have a comment on my comment. Depew: I'm I have a concern on how on the mitigating factors uh specifically water is a big issue with me always and we've identified it as less than significant and the mitigating factor there is uh to impose fees on the developers uh which I assume is with the idea that that money can go for buying more water. Well, you can't buy more water when it doesn't exist. So, I think we should concentrate on what to do with those fees to actually mitigate the issue of the population growth impacting the supply of water. Uh, and with that, I would say, you know, what are we going to do with those funds once we collect them? They don't necessarily buy more water if all of a sudden the sources tell us, "Sorry, you've gotten your maximum allocation. So, can we divert that to something else to help mitigate it, like recycling or other avenues other than just buying more water?" Chair Perrell: Okay. Yeah, that's a great comment. I totally agree and we're seeing more and more fighting over Colorado River water which we use in part here. So when you look at all the cumulative impacts of all these other projects, there's a lot more demand for water and a lot more demand for um storm water um runoff too. So yeah, great great comment. EQCB- Purrell-3 cont. EQCB- Villanue va-1 EQCB- Purrell-3 cont. EQCB- Depew- 1 EQCB- Perrell-4 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Depew: Well, that that's it for me. Chair Perrell: And board member Villanova. Villanueva: Actually, I don't have a laundry list this time. I just want to commend staff and the consultant team. I think uh the sites that were identified, at least as it relates to district one, you know, this was done with a lot of consideration, a lot of care. You know, I appreciate the level of detail here. So, I just want to thank you guys and commend you on a job well done. We like to take notes on those. Anna Radonich: Yes. Thank you. Horning: The only follow any other the only other follow-up comment I have is the purpose for tonight's meeting is to is to motivate the community with more education, which is what this presentation is about to see if there's any particular areas that they feel strongly enough that they need to comment on. And I think that we've identified I I didn't really focus on the quality of life but that's a very important consideration and then all these other things as to the the insurance which I'd never thought about that specifically but that impacts all of us so you know if you tie all these things and compile them all and you know I think we do have enough information that we can have suggest comments are we supposed to suggest comments that would be coming from the council or just um Alexa. Director Smittle: comments from you um or if you've had you know conversations with neighbors or you know things that you would want to share now is now is the time for you to just speak for yourself or for things that you've heard anything that's of a concern. Horning: Yeah. So one of the things I would intend to do when I get back is Leisure World has a newspaper. So write a little column suggesting as to here's the information that's available. here's some of my thoughts and y'all decide what you want to do and either you know as to the foundation or for individual HOA mutuals they can have their own comments as well as individuals. So it's a motivation tool and I think you've done a nice job with that and we've had some great comments that um I'd not thought about particularly but um it all kind of ties together so yeah thank you. Chair Perrell: Great. Board member Hsu. Hsu: Um I just thought of something which is that um something that's of I think chief concern well in my district because um I see it happen is that we have drainage issues right throughout various places in Seal Beach. Um I guess in terms of these particular housing elements um I'm trying to understand better how the drainage issue is going to be handled um so that we don't further compound the other drainage issues that we have um which are outstanding and seem to get worse every time we have a major rain storm. So um that's just something I'm concerned about. Chair Perrell: Yeah, my in my district as well, same concerns. Okay. Well, I have I have my site my specific concern. Uh, and by the way, I'm going to write up all of my questions, concerns and issues and suggestions and I'm going to submit them in writing and I and I encourage everyone else to do because there'll be things we think about. You know, I'm sure I'm getting stimulated in my thoughts by hearing you and um and things will come up when you talk to neighbors more and all that and you go for your second or third or fourth reading of the draft. You'll come with up with more. So, I encourage everyone to give it some more thought um and and submit your comments before the deadline. And I'm going to but this is one I I'm really grateful to share tonight because I really feel strongly about this site um right EQCB- Villanueva -2 EQCB- Horning -4 EQCB- Horning-4 cont. EQCB- Hsu-2 EQCB- Perrell- 5 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs now. Um so this is really um okay I'll just pick one of the two. Right. Okay. This is this is really about site number eight which is the 99 Marina Drive. And um 99 Marina Drive is really quite different from any other sites. Um most of the other sites are heavily disturbed pieces of land, often paved over parking lots in the middle of a commercial um or industrial facility and and uh and opportunity site 8 is really quite different. So, one of the reasons that the draft environmental impact report gave for for having Old Ranch Country Club that pipeline site to be reviewed in a separate project specific EIR rather than in this programmatic EIR. One of those reasons was because unlike those paved parking lots and uh those heavily disturbed opportunity sites, the Old Ranch Country Club is a golf course and therefore it's the DEIR state is more more likely to contain protected biological resources and and those might warrant a specific detailed assessment more than any of the other sites and and we have gone that way with that we will do a separate doing we are the city is doing a separate um environmental impact report for Old Ranch Country Club. But this opportunity site number eight, 99 Marina Drive, that's even less disturbed than a golf course. So, a golf course is is really kind of a sterilized open space. It's persistently irrigated and groomed and fertilized and insect controlled with pesticides and sometimes herbicides. It's not really a natural space and it's not a public recreation space. It's private. It's a very tough place for um protected plants and species to um to survive and do well. On the other hand, the baseline condition for Opportunity Site 8, the 99 Marina Drive is it's a naturalized open space. It's a public recreation space. That's its baseline uh land use at the current time. It has been for many years. It's full of trees and shrubs and grasses and birds and reptiles, insects and mammals and people and kids and families. So the draft environmental impact report says it contains an abandoned handball court, but in reality the handball court is not abandoned and it's often used by families, athletes, and others for a whole bunch of different sports and play. And that's just one part of this site. The site is unique and it's a rare, very rare open space left in our city that's somewhat naturalized. It's proximal to our river and and our coastal recreation and those ecosystems. So, it it's kind of special. When I look at the draft environmental report, it documents 11 special status plants and animals at 99 Marina Drive. But it seems it seems clear to me from looking at um published nearby bird counts and other studies that the draft environmental impact report didn't fully document the protected species and habitat in that are present on that site. Um I I'm concerned that without an accurate baseline assessment of recreational and biological resources, we really won't know the impacts and we really don't know how to mitigate them. So, I'm just I'm just rather concerned about this. The city doesn't always doesn't even yet meet its recreation um requirements. We're we're way underboard underwater on recreation space in in Sil Beach and um we had have hardly any naturalized space. So, I think this site um relatively undisturbed, open space, historical baseline, recreational use, special status species, protected species. We're gonna we're the the draft is proposing to rezone this space with residential high density RHD33 even when directly adjacent to that Bridgeport um were low density RLD15 and there just appears to be no mitigation for loss of habitat or recreation value. So I can think of quite a lot of mitigation. If you need help thinking up mitigation, I got some great ideas. I think this this site deserves its own its own EIR. I don't think it's going to be taken care of properly. I don't think it's going to be assessed or mitigated properly or even assigned proper zoning under this programmatic EIR. I think more much more so than than Old Ranch Country Club. This this project needs a project specific EIR and I'd like to recommend that we consider that and I hope some of you board members might consider um supporting me on that. And of course when we do that sight specific EIR the developer will pay for it not the city of course. So thank you. Any any thoughts on that from my board members? EQCB- Perrell-6 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Horning: I think you're right. is important that each individual especially like Leisure World site in that it's the 5.1 acres um that um it needs to be evaluated in depth before it is even offered as an opportunity site and I think you know perhaps that's part of the process that we have to deal with and you know we don't have any say in whether this housing element rule is fitting for us or not so we have to be our own defense team and say okay this reasons why we don't think it's appropriate nor should it be considered a site. So that's for the comments to uh focus on if they would like to do that. So that that would be my my sort of comment on that. Okay. Trevor Macenski: And uh just for uh the discussion and remarks and comments, the only thing that I'd offer is that um there is no guaranteed path after you know implementation of the housing element or certification. Each potential site should somebody bring forward an application will be reviewed individually on its merits to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. Um there is very specific case law about the type of documents which are required depending upon what is proposed. And so I will just leave it at that. uh there are specific uh pathways that are now in our state laws related to CEQA streamlining depending upon if you um propose certain types of housing and avoid certain types of resource considerations which might be located at a site. So just know that uh this is not a green light for all development to happen on these sites. There is a subsequent environmental review consideration when an application if an application is ever to be received on one of these and so I just offer that for context. Chair Perrell: Thank you. I just have a question to follow up with that. Um but once this site would be certified for development and high say high density development under this programmatic EIR um I I don't think the chances would be very good for sight specific EIR after that and tell me if I'm wrong about that. Um, and also I I just don't think that whatever environmental review was required um it wouldn't it wouldn't have the public input and the public review that the CEQA process provides. Trevor Macenski: Yeah. So I can respond to that for sure. Um if the if the sight specific conditions which you identified in your remarks are present um there any project which has the potential to have a significant effect past a threshold would have to prepare specific evaluations. So you'd spoken earlier about uh species and natural resource evaluations. So in a normal circumstance on any type of development application, the city would say, "Hey, we would like a study to uh document that baseline and identify whether those special status species are present or not." And based on that study and its evaluation that could determine, hey, look, there's a protected species here and if you're going to be impacting it and it's significant, then you have to do an EIR to disclose it. So that's what I mean in the nuance of it really depends upon the context of what's being proposed. But the part I do want to make sure that the community and the commission is aware of is that it's not just a uh an opportunity to move forward with development. There is a specific process for the city and its planning department to review subsequent entitlements. Chair Perrell: Yeah, it is a big feather and a cap though for a developer to have gone through a programmatic EIR. Trevor Macenski: Correct. You're yes, you're absolutely correct. And it is a uh it is um the zoning, right? If you were to take land that is open space and all of a sudden you put residential zoning over it, it and increases its value in its um instantaneously. So I mean it is a step forward in the development process. So acknowledged. EQCB- Horning- 5 EQCB- Purrell-7 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Chair Perrell: Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, we need to go down the line. Villanueva: Actually, I wanted to to comment on your specific comments about the 99 Marina property because I do agree that it would be a shame to see that property developed into a very dense kind of we'll call it eaves like property, but we are talking about three acres in an area where housing is very difficult to come by. So, I'm wondering if we could maybe kind of split the difference like we've seen with the old uh I think it was the LAWDP site on First Street, you know, and we set up, you know, a a portion of it for open space and allowed development, you know, maybe we set aside an acre for open space and we allowed the development on two acres, you know. Chair Perrell: brilliant, and I think coastal commission was had a lot to do with that and they may step in here as well but we can't really rely on that but thank you I totally I think that's that's great idea. Director Smittle: Chair if I may also just um provide a little bit of comment all sites all the housing element sites do take into account that they cannot be 100% developed to the buildout of their zoning assignment So, and that includes 99 marina. So, there's, you know, the 33 * 4 acres or whatever. That's not the number that's assigned to it as a part of this process. It is a lower number because there were assumptions made in the analysis as the housing element was being developed to account for these different things. And it may be um it may be sight specific um due to uses are being located in the coastal zone. It may have to do with development standards, setbacks and things like that apply to projects. So, as a part of developing the housing element itself, we did take into consideration um drawing some of those numbers back from a full buildout number. Now, what's analyzed in the EIR is a higher number again to provide that that flexibility. Chair Perrell: Okay. Thank you for that. And flexibility doesn't mean entitlement. Director Smittle: Correct. Trevor Macenski: Correct. Yeah. And actually that uh to take your point just for the because it's some something that's not very often covered. Um the community's ability to meet your regional housing need allocation can come from sites far beyond these eight. So if there is a project that comes forward and you develop other units to meet that goal, it doesn't necessarily need to be at these locations. And I only say that because um somebody could come in and want to rezone a site as part of an application or something like that. Chair Perrell: Yeah. Sure. Okay. Board member Depew, do you have any other um sight specific concerns? Depew: No other no other comments for me right now anyway. Chair Perrell: Okay. Board member Hsu Good. Thank you. Well, if we have no more comments we want to share tonight, could we open this up for public comment? Finally, and thank you for the public for uh listening to us. Opine Richard Coles: Good evening. Um, nice to see everybody. My name is Richard Coles. Um, uh, I live at 154 Electric Avenue. I'm a planning commissioner here in town. Prior to that, I spent 10 years on this board and, uh, professionally, I've reviewed scores of programmatic EIRS. For example, the Owens Lake projects with LA Department of Water and Power. I was the overall program manager for eight years. And I do EQCB- Villanueva-3 EQCB- Coles-1 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs believe that because of the diversity and geological difference in our locations, we really need to have separate EIRS because programmatically it took us 10 years to build that project. So what was analyzed in the programmatic EIR you fast forward 10 years when you actually do something could have many years subsequent to that. We found the same thing. I testified against the um the programmatic EIR in Long Beach for the significant development that is will occur on our border here. Um very high density. We can barely travel through Second Street now. I think that we should have had a road going through, done something a little more creative with transportation. But nevertheless, here in town, I uh I reviewed your portions of the EIR. I think it needs some help. uh in those key areas uh that I'd like to talk about. We talk often about quality of life. Um for the last 41 years, I've been a water engineer, an environmental civil engineer. And it seems to me that as I reviewed over the years, our storm water condition, typically when we design storm water, we designed it for a hundred-year flood event. Well, I wasn't here all those years ago, and they designed it for a 50-year event. Well, when they actually built it, they built it for a 25-year event. So, flooding on Main Street and throughout Old Town is rampant. And I think further analysis of storm water conditions are absolutely essential to any criteria that you develop. Furthermore, I think the infrastructure, some of the original piping that was put in Old Town was done in 1915. So any type of vertical construction that you're going to do needs absolute analysis. This affects our quality of life on water. You know, we have frequent blackouts here in town. And you're going to increase usage. Uh you say you're going to use fees. That never happens. Developers never pay up. They don't do the infrastructure work. I've been doing this for 40 years. So I think we need to really rethink how we fix the infrastructure to allow our quality of life to become something that we can all live with. And I would like to address briefly what's happening with the hydraulics in College Park East. Well, I've looked at it many times. I see the thrusting slabs. Uh I had looked at the geotechnical aspects, the hydraulic aspects. They're huge problems. And so when we do that EIR I'll come back to that. I haven't forgotten about it. So um now that I'm retired I can do a few things but I u I would share with you I am concerned deeply about the marina site air quality. Long Beach just passed uh three new major developments there. Okay. None of us will be able to drive up Second Street enough. And I I like your idea about mixed use, maybe having some recreation. And I was I did review the design, RBF's design on the old DWP property, and we took that from 142 to 68 for that very reason. So, yeah, I think people were willing to accommodate that, but I think particularly in Old Town on Main Street, that's a non- starter. You should rethink that because of some of those buildings are in excess of a hundred years old. Um, I think that if you say, "Okay, we're going to tear it all apart and the rest of us have to deal with that for five years," you know, I could be dead by then. So, I would prefer you rethink that from an infrastructure, storm water, water use, conveyance, okay, and electrical usage before we say that this is a place that we're going to redevelop. Furthermore, people in this community cherish the way it looks as it is. Okay? And I've been on the planning commission for a few years. I know many of us have heard this before, but I think if you're going to mitigate something, 115 units in downtown, I don't think so. But I I think that needs to be carefully and I understand the policy, all of you. But I I share with Chairwoman Purrell her thoughts on whether it's policy or quality. I moved here 32 years ago because it was a quaint town. Our kids grew up here. This is what we did and I would like to leave it that way for future generations. Thank you. EQCB- Coles-2 EQCB- Coles-3 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Patty Senecal: Good evening. Um, Councilwoman Patty Senecal wanted to make a couple comments and first of all, sorry for the appearance was in a golf thing all day. So, charity tournament. Um, I want to bring up the point of traffic and I know the Sacramento has given us a new way to do this and it's about VMT, ve hicle miles traveled. And if I'm understanding correctly, um, the vehicle miles traveled, if they're less, but you're idling longer, it's okay is what I'm hearing out of the new policy from Sacramento. And so, my point is, I don't think that's okay. Okay. And when you come back to quality of life, um all this development, a lot of it's proposed up on um kind of over the bridge side of town and we have already significant traffic issues in the morning. You know, getting we're backed up now trying to get kids to school. Same thing in the afternoon and it's now backed up from um Seal Beach Boulevard even past um the driving range and so forth through Old Ranch. I mean, that's how far back our cars are. And so when I look at all this development, it um in my opinion, it is not okay to be idling our cars. And so this whole VMT thing, again, I know it's the new thing from Sacramento, but I think it is um it's not good for us. And on top of that, I want to make the point again. I think I think I did to you guys already. The studies now on road dust, in train road dust, whether it's brake dust or tire dust, the particulates are very dangerous. And the studies, even the California Resource Board has a study on their website. UCI has a big study. I've looked at four studies on this. And so all of a sudden now, you know, we're going to add all this traffic. let it move slower because it's going less and somehow that's better. It's still the tire and the brake dust and our cars on these streets. We've got bike paths now or bike lanes right next to the cars. And so again, what kind of, you know, Susan, I'm sure you can um look, but it's so the concern is again we're when we talk about this balance of quality of life and trying to have more housing stock. Um it seems disproportional that we're putting a lot of people at risk and adding more risk into the system. And I and I get it. Sacramento is telling us what to do. But so I would like to know in the EIR, can we require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on these sites or near these sites on a continual tracking basis of the air quality so we know what's going on. And then secondly, the sound meter from I don't know if that's Caltrans or whomever, but can we look at the decibel of the sound that's going to come off these projects? And I would like to see us do it before because then we have a baseline and we can tell what is going on once things if they get developed. So I don't know if that's a requirement we can put into the EIRS or um and then um again I think we really need to take the road dust very seriously. And I just want to comment where we are um up in College Park East. We have the 405 freeway which is what the busiest freeway in the United States happens to be on our backside. Okay. And then we have the training base flying planes all the time. And then we have Lampson which is kind of a little country road at times and all of a sudden now you know that's becoming a thoroughfare as well. And so you're taking a community and you are boxing us in. you are bubbling us in with an enormous amount of air quality issues, sound issues, and again this road dust issue. So I think um again I know we have we're being overridden by Sacramento on a lot of stuff, but I just would like it to be in the record. This is concerning and this is not balanced and um not sure what we can do about it but um deeply troubling for you know my community and the marina project as well would have the same impacts. Yeah. So thank you. Chair Perrell: Any other public comments this evening? Schelly Sustarsic: Hello, Schelly Sustarsic, College Park East. Uh, 35-year resident. Um, I did submit some questions to or some comments to the NOP. EQCB- Senecal -1 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Chair Perrell: I don't I don't know if I saw your comments, but Alexa may to the notice of preparation. Director Smittle: Yes. Um, and I believe they are addressed. Schelly Sustarsic: I think they were listed, but I went back and read my uh read my letter and said, "Okay, most of that is still what my thoughts are, but I decided to address the process, the document, and uh I started with uh changing. I'm going to read these just to make sure I get through them, but changing conditions in the future. There's a lot changing. My letter was a year and a half old and some things have changed. I uh I started with uh climate change just more extreme conditions and that's what we're noticing in College Park East especially because flooding has been something that's gone on for forever. But those 100-year storms are becoming more common and we're getting you know people can't leave their homes. It's just it's just you know cars are being you know there's been little intrusion into homes. there has been some intrusion into homes. Uh but cars are destroyed, people can't get out. Uh just the quality of life is not good. So the thought that it's going to be increasing and getting worse maybe on a regular basis. I'm also concerned with hydrology because of all this. Uh part of it is the old ranch project which we're not talking about, but that is where our water in College Park East goes. So, anything else that comes in there, whether it's the Lamson project or one of my questions at the end was does Old Ranch Town Center, does it go directly into the federal channel or does it go to the golf course somehow? So, anything that anyway anything that adds to that that situation because we're going to have a problem with water competition or competition for space to put to put water or we're going to be in trouble. So, uh I think hydrology is important down here too because the same thing you got issues down here. I totally recognize that and so I think hydrology overall is a big problem but I think it's one that says it's a slight not a significant impact but it does say you should have a study and so if study is the result of what I recommend for this then um I recommend that um also Surfside now is flooding uh let's see hydrologic um but Okay, let me put my glasses back on. Um, I attended uh Alexa's new housing laws and that also freaked me out because the uh the EIR um the housing element EIR that was approved not EIR the housing development uh up housing element update that was present I'll get it that was presented to the city council um when it was approved I and then it went to the airport land use. It was supposed to go there first. It didn't. It went there after the city council approved it. But at that time, I think the housing or the commercial limit that was given was about 35 ft. Well, now, oh my gosh, you know, I look at specifically I was had in mind the the shops at Rossmore, which have 441, maybe up to 500 and whatever when it's maxed out. um how many stories does you know will that be and that's not counting density bonus. So if density bonus is thrown in there that could be like a tower. Okay. Um we're not looking at the this document says also that there's no significant impacts in regard to the uh JFTB airport uh the the the Los Alamitos airport there. Um, if the plan is different than what was presented to the airport, then it's a different situation because that could be an obstacle. It could be glare and light issues to the to the base. Um, and that, you know, different than maybe what was analyzed. I know it was overruled, but I think if things change that there should be a new analysis. The airport land use uh should look at that again and it shouldn't be that it doesn't affect anybody. In the document, it looks primarily at uh noise contours which are not exactly the same as flight paths. Uh, so when I um I I'm taken to watching um flight tracker 24, I can hear those little planes every day take off. There's multiple Cessnas, there's multiple beach Cessnas transport, you know, like the helicopters in DC, they transport uh personnel from from places where they're going. So there's several Cessnas a day. There's several a beach that they take med flies, sterile med flies up and down all over the place to it's an EQCB- Sustarsic- 1 EQCB- Sustarsic- 2 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs important California project that's based there. So there are fixed wings, there's helicopters, they don't have the same flight path necessarily. Uh there are some published flight paths. That's not what was presented to our city council. Um but um there there's a lot going on there. When the development from the previous development from Bixby went on, they took we had a lot of open space up there and they took it and just about used it all up except for the um golf course there now. And um and that pretty much encroached on what they have. They have uh a little, you know, an area of departure now. And the base is our uh our environmental no not environmental emergency operations center only one in LA and Orange County. And there's different kinds of planes that come. Right now it's primarily the small jets or small planes and uh and um helicopters but there's a potential in CA in times of earthquake in times of riot uh state or federal you know deployments anything going on that base can convert to something at any time and uh immigration who knows uh and things can change. So anyway, those are those are all things that um that I'm probably getting out of my out of my thing now. Um okay. Um the old ranch town center was built practically backs right up to the JFDB runways and the crash zone. I have personally seen large aircraft her aircraft overflow overfly straight out of the runways. Uh, I've been in the building of the Ralph's Market and had a cargo jet go overhead and it is incredibly loud even with all that stone concrete building. Um, uh, glare and lighting could definitely be an issue with this site when developed. I think I'm talking about the old ranch town center here. Uh, should be reviewed. Uh, as well as the Rossmoor project also cumulative up there. I you know I read the I did read the table where we talked about you know the Lampson project the long beach projects and uh orange county of orange also has has things so I see that they're cumulative when you look at uh north of the freeway though there are those three sites the shops at Rossmoor the old ranch town center and the old ranch country club sites uh compose 918 housing sites out of the 1339 or 69% of the housing sites. If you take the buildout table, the three sites total 1111 housing sites uh for a total of or a percentage of 63% of the total housing element sites. So I think whether or not you see them potentially being developed right away, you still have to consider all those cumulative uh impacts on traffic, hydrology, sewer, light, and glare. Uh you know, I can't imagine if everything was built out what the Seal Beach just has so few through streets. I mean, there's Seal Beach Boulevard and there's, you know, Lampson isn't even really counted, but there's Westminster and PCH. there's just not much way for traffic to get around and circulation is so important also to your quality of life. Um, okay. Traffic should also be considered on each proposed site. And I think they do propose a track I I have to admit I've only threw three or 4 hundred pages. I'm working my way, but I'm you know I'm getting there. So, um, Seal Beach is not uniform. We have the coast. We have the airport airport areas. It shouldn't be all painted with a broad brush. Traffic circulations at each site. I agree with um Mr. Cole. Yeah, Mr. uh Rich. Um more sites need more traffic. Um bus service in Orange County has been on the decline for years, even before COVID, possibly due to Uber and Lift as well. uh maybe Door Dash, Amazon, who knows who or work from home options. OCTA has pulled back from roots on the periphery of the county to focus on central county roots such as Harbor and Beach. So, the idea that we can have uh it's not it's not going to happen. It's you know, so um noise impacts on noise. How about the uh impacts of noise on a project? 45 decibels depends on closed windows with air conditioning and I had the same thought about low-income people. They can move in under the air traffic pattern but they have to keep their pay for air condition and keep their windows closed. So construction heights are also are listed as being 200 feet tall. the FAA uh does reduce height during construction due to the presence of cranes. So that I don't think is is true either. Um I I have an issue with a finding of no significant impact regards to airport hazards. This must be EQCB- Sustarsic-2 cont. EQCB- Sustarsic-3 EQCB- Sustarsic- 5 EQCB- Sustarsic -4 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs evaluated at sites near the airport. The city has provided a flight path that is extremely limited when published flight paths and lives apps such as flight radar 24 show a much varied set of flight path both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Um fixed wing planes for which this is the only depart departure route is out over the golf course flying daily out of JFTB. Uh these planes transport uh let's see I already did that. Flights have increased since the safety zones were realigned in the 80s to follow Air Force standards. It is my understanding that each service branch is now required to have its airports follow its own branches standards I believe since 2018. the JFD the uh JFTV's a loop was uh updated not really updated but looked at again in 2017 and they didn't do anything I think out of lack of funding but uh thing things may have changed uh in the general plan land use uh page 43 planning area 4 in uh had has a goal to discourage further encroachment into the Los Alamitos JFTV flight path. Uh this was written after the Bixby project when so much encroachment had happened and it was pretty much viewed as Bixby's final plan but that the plan the goal of no further encroachment was put into the general plan 2003 to say enough you know so what I see is what's going to happen is trying to encircle the departure path and keep you know and our goal is to not negatively impact the operations of the airport. Also protect people underneath the flight path of the airport and that should be viewed in any site that's near the airport. The JFTB flight path published data said that pilots are told to not fly over any residential areas. This is for safety as well as noise due to the potential for accidents, especially on takeoffs and landings. Uh it's the the golf course is mostly for departure, but 8% of the time reverse conditions or Santa Anas. It's approach and those planes fly in low on approach. Uh large weighted cargo planes cannot make the turn that that's in the flight path, the turn down towards the um naval weapons station. They are also incredibly loud and I have seen them pass very low over the eucalyptus trees as they fly west onto um pass over Seal Beach Boulevard. Um okay, so I had a had a couple questions. One is what about the next housing element cycle? What do we do if we have even more? Do we just is everything become a tall tower? I mean, I'm just I'm just I just don't know. We've had so much trouble getting this, you know, getting this done. I just don't know what. But it looks like in just a couple years we'll be maybe finding out. Um let's see. I asked those questions already. Um okay. So if a large development necessitates an upgrade of our city's utilities such as water, sewer or storm water, the document says that they would pay their fair share. So if a big project comes in, whether it's on Lampson, Seal Beach, Boulder, I mean, I'm focused kind of north just because I'm more familiar with it, not because I don't care about down here because the same the same questions down here. If uh if we say okay we're going to need you to hook into the sewer or supply water and it's inadequate now they'll pay their fair share and it could even be in loo money which you don't know where that ever whether that ever helps but does that then mean the Seal beach taxpayer or rate payers have to step up and say we have to do this CIB project because this development is is forcing that I don't know and I I'm just uh so that one bothered me a lot because every time I thought about an issue somewhere I'm like oh well who's going to who's going to pay for that you know partly because we have issues in in College Park East but you know so anyway those are my those are my comments and I will try to keep working and maybe submit some written comments by the 23rd but uh anyway thank you Chair Perrell: Yeah, we're not going to do this in another two years, are we? Any other comments from the public tonight? I'm so pleased that we got the comments we did. Very helpful. Okay, back to my cheat sheet then. Um, I think we're getting to the end. Any other staff concerns, comments? EQCB- Sustarsic -5 cont. EQCB- Sustarsic -6 EQCB- Sustarsic- 7 Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs Director Smittle: No, no staff concerns. Thank you, chair. Chair Perrell: Any other board concerns? I will now adjourn this meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board. Thank you very much, everyone. It's good meeting I think. Thank you. Appendix B Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov June 19, 2025 Ms. Alexa Smittle Electronically Sent asmittle@sealbeachca.gov Community Development Director City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: SCH #2023110425- City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Dear Ms. Smittle: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). One of the goals of the Division is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) or their equivalent, to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Division of Aeronautics in the review of the DEIR. The proposed Project regards updating the City of Seal Beach (City) Housing Element, where Housing Opportunity (HO) Sites are identified, resulting in a potential rezone concurrent with residential uses. HO Sites 4 (The Shops at Rossmoor) and 5 (Old Ranch Town Center) identified in the DEIR are located approximately 0.3 miles of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and aligned close to the end of the runway path. The Division notes that while the adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Los Alamitos JFTB does not depict off-base accident potential zones, the potential for aircraft overflight and safety-related exposure remains a consideration due to the nature and frequency of operations at the facility. Additionally, a portion of these sites falls within the 65 CNEL contour as shown in the AELUP, indicating elevated exposure to aircraft overflight noise. In accordance with California Code Public Resources Code - PRC § 21096, the City is encouraged to evaluate potential noise-related compatibility concerns, particularly for noise-sensitive land uses such as residential development. While sound insulation, avigation easements, and disclosure statements may serve as mitigation, these measures do not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise or vibration annoyances to residents from military aircraft activity. CL- Caltrans DOA-1 CL- Caltrans DOA-2 Ms. Smittle, Community Development Director June 19, 2025 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The Division suggests the City consider relocating or eliminating HO Sites 4 and 5 to minimize potential land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities and to reduce long-term exposure of residents to aircraft noise, vibration, and potential safety hazards. Consideration of such adjustments may support the City’s efforts to balance housing needs with public health, safety, and welfare consistent with applicable State Aeronautics Act provisions. These comments reflect the areas of review by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-related noise, safety, and land use planning issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me by email at vincent.ray@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Vincent Ray Aviation Planner Caltrans Division of Aeronautics c: Julie Fitch, Executive Officer, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, jfitch@ocair.com Scott Shelley, Caltrans District 12 Local Development Review, scott.shelley@dot.ca.gov CL- Caltrans DOA-3 CL- Caltrans DOA-4 Improving lives and communities through transportation. DISTRICT 12 1750 East 4 th Street, Suite 100 | SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (657) 328-6000 | FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711 https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-12 June 23, 2025 Ms. Alexa Smittle File: LDR/CEQA Community Development Director SCH: 2023110425 City of Seal Beach 12-ORA-2025-02821 211 Eighth Street SR-1, SR-22, I-405, I-605 Seal Beach, CA. 90740 Dear Ms. Smittle, Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Update Project. The Project is the City's Housing Element Update and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA in all income categories. In addition, the sites inventory also identifies the Main Street Program, ADUs, and the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project in its Housing Element Update. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts from implementation of the Housing Element update and zoning code update. The project site is the City of Seal Beach which includes eight housing opportunity sites, Main Street Program, Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) throughout the city totaling approximately 259.45 acres, of which 60.05 acres are developable. The City of Seal Beach is accessed regionally by State Route (SR)1, SR-22, Interstate 405 and Interstate 605. CL- Caltrans-1 City of Seal Beach June 23, 2025 Page 2 Improving lives and communities through transportation. CL- Caltrans-2 CL- Caltrans-3 City of Seal Beach June 23, 2025 Page 3 Improving lives and communities through transportation. CL- Caltrans-4 CL- Caltrans-5 CL- Caltrans-6 CL- Caltrans-7 City of Seal Beach June 23, 2025 Page 4 Improving lives and communities through transportation. CL- Caltrans-7 cont. CL- Caltrans- 8 CL- Caltrans -9 City of Seal Beach June 23, 2025 Page 5 Improving lives and communities through transportation. 17. Please submit all applications and associated documents/plans via email to D12.Permits@dot.ca.gov until further notice. Caltrans Encroachment Permits will be transitioning to an online web portal base for all applications in Fall 2023. Further details to be announced on the Caltrans Encroachment Permits homepage. Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (657) 328-6246. For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure and any future updates regarding the application process and permit rates, please visit the Caltrans Encroachment Permits homepage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/ep. to improve lives and communities through transportation. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at Julie.lugaro@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Scott Shelley Branch Chief, Local Development Review - Climate Change - Transit Grants Caltrans, District 12 CL- Caltrans -9 cont. CL- Caltrans-10 CL- LosAlamit os-1 CL- LosAlami tos-2 CL- LosAlam itos-2 cont. CL- LosAlam itos-3 CL- LosAlam itos-4 June 20, 2025 Via Email to planning@sealbeachca.gov Ms. Alexa Smittle Community Development Director City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Dear Ms. Smittle: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project). I am writing to request that the issue of rising insurance costs due to the increased flooding risk from the Project's additional building be analyzed as part of the EIR. The Project's addition of buildings, roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces to the landscape will result in more flooding, especially as many areas of Seal Beach are already prone to flooding with rainstorms that have intensified ove r the last several years. This will result in higher homeowners and flood insurance premiums for all Seal Beach residents, and the cost of insurance may be completely unaffordable to many residents. Many insurance companies already will not provide homeown ers insurance coverage in Seal Beach, and the homeowners insurance that can be secured is already very expensive. The lack of insurance availability and affordability results in both decreasing the quality of life for current and future residents and not advancing the provisions of affordable housing in Seal Beach, which are in direct opposition to two of the primary objectives supporting the Project’s purpose, and should be considered under CEQA. To address this concern, I am requesting that the EIR should: •Include a realistic economic evaluation of how insurance costs rise with increased flooding. •Discuss how insurance costs and availability affect housing affordability. •Provide assurances that the proposed flooding mitigation will be effective , effectively implemented, monitored for performance, and modified if the mitigation is found not to be effective. •Consider having developers pay into a flood monitoring/mitigation/insurance fund. Thank you for all your work in preparing the Draft EIR. I appreciate your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, CL-Hsu-1 CL-Hsu-2 CL-Hsu-3 Belle Hsu CL- Miller-1 CL-Miller-1 cont. Ms. Alexa Smittle Community Development Director City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 (sent via email attachment to: planning@sealbeachca.gov) June 18, 2025 Dear Ms. Smittle, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project”). Despite this Project’s disparate regulatory drivers, project sites, and competing project objectives, the DEIR is highly readable and well-organized. I want to commend you and the Community Development team for this and all your diligent efforts to effectively comply with the unfunded State housing mandates. The following DEIR comments are not meant to delay or increase the cost of compliance efforts. The intent is to help the Project comply – with both CEQA and housing mandates - in a more holistic and consistent manner, with greater balance between opposing Project objectives, and further mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts. Comments on Section 1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report Problem: Due to its unique resources and characteristics, it appears that Opportunity Site 8, 99 Marina Drive, cannot be adequately reviewed under this broad programmatic DEIR, and should instead be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR. The DEIR states that the Old Ranch Country Club (Pipeline site), unlike the other sites, shall be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR. The DEIR reasons that, unlike the heavily disturbed nature of the “opportunity sites”, the ORCC is a golf course and therefore is more likely to support biological resources warranting site-specific CEQA review. However, the Opportunity Site #8, “99 Marina Drive”, is less disturbed than a golf course and more likely than ORRC or any of the Opportunity Sites to support important biological resources. Applying the same logic, the DEIR should then also require that 99 Marina Drive be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR. A golf course is a relatively “sterilized” recreational space: persistently irrigated, groomed, and biologically controlled with herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Those CL- Perrell1-1 CL- Perrell1-2 activities significantly reduce biological diversity and habitat quality. The ORCC golf course is private; it provides no public recreation. In contrast to the ORCC and the other Opportunity Sites, the baseline for Opportunity Site # 8, “99 Marina Drive”, is a very rare and unique remaining open space in Seal Beach. Its location, near important coastal recreation and eco systems, adds to this resource value. 99 Marina Drive is a large naturalized open space that supports public recreation, trees, shrubs, grasses, birds, reptiles, insects, and mammals, including special status species. Its large permeable surface area provides needed stormwater drainage, infiltration, flood mitigation, and groundwater recharge, and may also help to prevent saltwater intrusion into groundwater. The DEIR does not adequately describe these environmental resources and services. The Project will impact the site’s hydrological features, increase existing flooding risks, and diminish housing insurability/affordability - another Project Objective. These impacts have not been adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR. The Project will impact recreational features. The DEIR states that 99 Marina Drive contains an “abandoned hand ball court”. However, the handball court there has never been abandoned and is used regularly by the public for a variety of play and sports. It is also used as an overflow/practice/warmup/waiting area for the already crowded public tennis and pickleball courts adjacent to it. These and other recreational features have not been adequately described in the DEIR. The Project’s impacts to these recreational features have not been adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR. The Project will impact biological resources at this site. The DEIR documents eleven special status plants and animals on site. However, nearby bird counts and species inventories suggest that the DEIR has not fully documented the protected species and habitat that may be present. The DEIR proposes to mitigate biological impacts with MM Bio-3, but this mitigation measure only seasonally protects certain bird nesting activities and does not mitigate loss of habitat. The DEIR does not adequately describe the site’s biological resources, nor does it adequately assess the biological impacts or mitigation. The DEIR states that developers and owners are ready to move on development at this site. As written, the DEIR can entitle them to do so, resulting in the significant impacts documented in the DEIR, as well as other potentially significant impacts that are not adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR. With its unique and important resources, 99 Marina Drive does not resemble any of the opportunity sites that the programmatic DEIR lumps it together with. Unlike 99 Marina Drive, the other opportunity sites are heavily disturbed, support few biological, CL- Perrell1-2 cont. hydrological, or recreational resources, and are not close to important coastal resources. While inclusion in a programmatic EIR does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future site-specific studies to better inform permitting decisions, a programmatic EIR significantly reduces the likelihood that a proposed development project will be required to conduct a thorough site-specific study under public review and discretionary approval. The DEIR proposes to rezone this naturalized open space site with a residential high density RHD-33, which seems inconsistent and inappropriate, as the site borders Bridgeport’s residential low density RLD-15 homes. It is even more inconsistent when considering that half or more of Bridgeport homes are limited to a maximum of one story. It is also inconsistent with the #1 Project Objective, to “improve quality of life for current and future residents”. The proposed high-density zoning for this site is inconsistent and will increase the Project’s already significant environmental impacts. Suggested Solutions: 99 Marina Drive should be treated as the ORRC site has been, with limited inclusion in the Programmatic DEIR, and the commitment that the site will be studied and publicly reviewed under CEQA through a separate, site-specific EIR. Any future development at 99 Marina Drive should be zoned under RLD-15 to provide zoning consistency with the adjacent neighborhood and to also avoid and mitigate Project impacts. Comments on Section 2.8 Project Objectives Problem: Section 2.8 of the DEIR lists the five Project Objectives. The Project’s first objective, “improve quality of life for current and future residents” is conflicted and opposed by the Project’s third Objective, “Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation”. The DEIR itself highlights how these objectives conflict. According to the DEIR, in meeting the 1243-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the Project will create significant and ‘unavoidable’ impacts in impact categories including transportation, recreation, public services, water quality, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. These Project impacts do not protect and improve the quality of life for the City’s households. Instead, these impacts degrade and diminish the quality of life for the City’s households. CEQA Guidance informs us that when Project Objectives oppose or conflict, we must balance those objectives by: a.Evaluating project alternatives that meet some or most objectives and result in less impacts. CL- Perrell1-2 cont. CL- Perrell1-3 b.Finding overriding considerations that help to justify unavoidable significant impacts. c.Insuring that we are mitigating any significant impacts to the extent feasible. By achieving 100% of the #3 Project Objective, “Amend land use standards and designation … to comply with State laws and RHNA”, the Project fails to achieve any significant portion of its number #1 Project Objective, “Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents”. The Project, as designed and described in the DEIR, does not come close to balancing these stated Objectives. Suggested Solutions: The Project should provide greater balance between its opposing objectives. It should achieve this by: 1.Reducing residential density in some or all the proposed development sites. 2. Considering additional types of mitigation to help the Project to achieve its first Project Objective. 3.Mitigating significant impacts to the extent feasible, even if the impacts cannot be reduced below the level of significance. 4.Considering mitigation to reduce significant transportation impacts, such as the construction of dedicated bike paths, walk paths, and pedestrian bridges to safely connect pedestrians with nearby commercial centers. 5.Requiring sites with existing recreational, hydrogeological, and biological resources to protect a significant portion of resource acreage (at minimum, 5 acres/1000 residents as provided in City Code and Quimby Act) from development impacts. Doing so would more fully mitigate the so-called “unavoidable” significant impacts than “in lieu fees” will. 6.Requiring the use of permeable pavement materials and other materials and best practices to mitigate impacts to water quality and hydrology. 7.Designing the Project to meet most or at least some part of each Project Objective, with due consideration of Objectives that protect human health and the environment. 8.Describing in the DEIR how the Project will meet Project Objective 1. Comments on Section 3.4 Recreation Problem: Section 3.4 of the DEIR states that “the Project would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.” CL- Perrell1-3 cont. CL- Perrell1-4 The DEIR further states that due to existing excess development, the City will not be able to ever achieve the statewide recreational land use standards or the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The Project’s proposed developments will eliminate some or all the potential future recreational use at those sites, resulting in even greater overuse of our existing sub-standard recreational facilities. The DEIR states that the City Code requires future developments to dedicate 5 recreational acres per 1000 residents or a ‘fee-in-lieu of’ recreational spaces, and the specific mitigation would be determined later, on a site-specific basis. In lieu fees would be used for either acquiring land or developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities. The problem with “fee in lieu of” mitigation is that there is little or no land with recreational value left to be acquired with such fees. Also, since the loss of recreational value at each proposed development site depends on different unassessed and site-specific attributes, it is highly doubtful that a fee schedule based on commercial property value could equilibrate to environmental property value. The proposed use of fees for “rehabilitating” existing recreational resources cannot adequately mitigate for the further loss of the little remaining potential recreational space, nor will it mitigate the impacts of adding more recreational users to existing overburdened recreational acres. The maintenance of any existing recreational resources should be sufficiently funded from existing City revenues. A need for “rehabilitation” would seem to indicate degrad ation resulting from the negligence of such maintenance. Relying on new developments to fill City budgetary holes creates a vicious cycle of development dependency and overdevelopment. Suggested Solutions: The EIR should ensure that all recreation al impacts resulting from this Project will be required to provide mitigation that is real, meaningful, site-specific, localized, and “like for like.” For sites that currently provide recreational value, like 99 Marina Drive, for instance, the site-specific impacts and the site-specific mitigation should be publicly reviewed and decided through a discretionary, not a ministerial process. A loss of public recreational resources due to a development at 99 Marina Drive should be mitigated by providing the same recreational use benefits, in the same or greater amount, to the same recreational users, in the same local area, in the same ecological setting, to the extent feasible. 99 Marina Drive provides naturalized acres, supports appreciation of wildlife and protected flora and fauna, sports, play, family fitness, picnicking, parking, adjacency to a City Park and a City recreation center, close proximity to the River, Beaches and a naturalized wetlands area, and is currently used daily by many people of all ages. Mitigation should provide the same values, to the extent feasible. An in-lieu fee that could be used to resurface an existing tennis court in another City district cannot mitigate those recreational losses. CL- Perrell1-4 cont. Comments on Section 3.4 Cultural Resources (for Mainstreet Specific Plan units): Problem: Allowing second floor housing to be built above existing Main Street single-story buildings may require structural modifications to the buildings. Such building modifications would need to be consistent with Code restrictions, historic preservation guidelines, and reviewed and approved by the City. However, those projects, and the potential impacts to Main Street’s aesthetics and historical building and objects, would not receive the level of public review they would receive under a Project specific EIR. While the DEIR provides Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1, the Development Review Process for Historical Resources, the DEIR does not make adequately clear how impacts to historic character and other historic resources would be adequately avoided or mitigated by MM CUL-1. Suggested Solutions: It would be helpful to clarify and specifically illustrate how potential aesthetic and historic impacts will be avoided or mitigated by the DEIR’s MM Cul-1. In recent years, many community members feel that Main Street’s historic architectural character has not always been adequately protected by the City’s building permit process. Considering this concern, the DEIR should make clear how the Project will be protective of aesthetic and historic resources. Comments on Section 3.9 Water Quality and Hydrology: Problem: Section 3.9 of the DEIR states that The Project could alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites by substantially increasing the rate or amount of runoff, create or contribute to runoff water, or impede or redirect flood flow. The DEIR identifies the adjacent Bridgeport community as a potential flood area. Bridgeport has experienced several instances of flooding in recent years. The DEIR states that Project Impact HYD-1 will “substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; ii) 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”. The DEIR states that Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 will require future development projects to identify site-specific impacts analysis impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure and mitigate them. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 includes site specific analysis and potential improvements which would reduce impacts to less than significant. A potential development project at 99 Marina Drive will eliminate a large existing stormwater infiltration basin and add a large additional volume of stormwater runoff to the already overburdened stormwater system. Suggested Solutions: CL- Perrell1-5 CL- Perrell1-6 1.Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 should also require future development projects to identify and fully mitigate, the extent feasible, site-specific impacts to adjacent streets, parks, and neighborhoods, not just to the “City’s storm drain infrastructure”. 2.The DEIR should more clearly require that any reduction of existing stormwater infiltration capacity and any addition to stormwater runoff volume will need to be completely mitigated by upgrading the City’s already overburdened stormwater system to effectively accommodate those volumes. 3.In addition, any new development should be required to accommodate stormwater from a 50 year or 100-year storm, either through on-site avoidance and mitigation measures, or by upgrading the City’s systems to accommodate, or a combination of both. 4.All impacts to water quality and hydrology, along with any proposed mitigation, should be subject to public review, involving the surrounding impacted community. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Best, Susan Perrell CL- Perrell1-6 cont. From:Alexa Smittle To:Webster, Jennifer Cc:Shaun Temple; Radonich, Anna Subject:FW: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project Date:Friday, June 20, 2025 12:24:26 PM Alexa Smittle Community Development Director/ Interim Assistant City Manager (562) 431-2527 x 1313 From: Susan Perrell <susan@outdoorsynergy.net> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:08 AM To: Planning <Planning@sealbeachca.gov> Cc: Alexa Smittle <ASmittle@sealbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project Dear Ms. Smittle, I would like to add this more specific information regarding the 99 Marina Drive site, to my previously submitted comments on the DEIR. I’m traveling without my laptop; please excuse the informal format of this addendum to my submission. Thank you! Regarding the Project’s flooding risks to 99 Marina Drive: The property lies in between two known low areas ("sumps" on 1st St and Corsair Way) that have experienced severe flooding in the past 10 years. The property’s highly permeable surface currently provides needed stormwater infiltration. This baseline flood prevention feature will be diminished substantially by any development, resulting in significant flood impacts. Therefore, the Project must provide real, specific, effective, and measurable mitigation measures for these impacts. The most feasible and effective mitigation measure would be to do what was done at the recent Ocean Place development at 1st and Marina: the preservation of permeable surface areas and the installation of storm water retention basins to capture up to a 100-year rain event. The DEIR did not adequately assess or describe the Project’s flooding impacts, and did not propose meaningful mitigation, even when it has proven feasible and successful at the recent nearby development project. These significant Project impacts are not unavoidable and have not been mitigated to the extent feasible. Therefore, the Project EIR cannot be certifiable, even with overriding considerations. 99 Marina should be reviewed under a site specific EIR. Cl- Perrell2-1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Best, Susan Perrell Get Outlook for iOS From: Susan Perrell Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:07:21 PM To: planning@SealBeachCa.gov <planning@SealBeachCa.gov> Cc: Alexa Smittle <asmittle@sealbeachca.gov> Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project Dear Ms. Smittle, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project”). Despite this Project’s disparate regulatory drivers, project sites, and competing project objectives, the DEIR is highly readable and well-organized. I want to commend you and the Community Development team for this and all your diligent efforts to effectively comply with the unfunded State housing mandates. The attached DEIR comments are not meant to delay or increase the cost of compliance efforts. The intent is to help the Project comply – with both CEQA and housing mandates - in a more holistic and consistent manner, with greater balance between opposing Project objectives, and further mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts. Best, Susan Perrell Caution: This email originated from outside of Stantec. Please take extra precaution. Attention: Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur de Stantec. Veuillez prendre des précautions supplémentaires. Atención: Este correo electrónico proviene de fuera de Stantec. Por favor, tome precauciones adicionales. CL- Sustarsic-1 CL- Sustarsic-2 CL- Sustarsic-3 CL- Sustarsic-3 cont. CL- Sustarsic- 4 CL- Sustarsic-5 CL- Sustarsic-5 cont. CL-Sustarsic-6 CL- Lasser-1 CL- Lasser-2 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report May 9, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2999 Oak Road, Suite 800 Walnut Creek, California 94597 ~ Stantec CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES .............................................................. ES-1 ES.1.1 EIR Organization .......................................................................... ES-2 ES.1.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR ...................................................... ES-3 ES.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................ ES-3 ES.2.1 Project Location ........................................................................... ES-3 ES.2.2 Project Summary .......................................................................... ES-4 ES.2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................ ES-5 ES.2.4 List of Permits and Other Approvals ............................................. ES-5 ES.2.5 List of Agencies ............................................................................ ES-6 ES.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION ..................................... ES-6 ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ......................................................................... ES-6 ES.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................... ES-7 ES.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................... ES-7 ES.7 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR..................................................................... ES-37 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Purpose of Environmental Impact Report ........................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report ............................................. 1-2 1.2 SCOPE OF DRAFT EIR ................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Environmental Issues Determined Not to be Significant ................ 1-13 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................... 1-16 1.4 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................ 1-17 1.4.1 Effectively Commenting on an EIR ................................................ 1-18 1.4.2 Final EIR ....................................................................................... 1-18 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ..................................................... 2-3 2.3 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.1 Population ....................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Housing ........................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3 General Plan ................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.4 Land Use Categories ...................................................................... 2-7 2.3.5 Zoning Code ................................................................................... 2-8 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................... 2-10 2.5 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT COMPONENTS ......................................... 2-12 2.5.1 Housing Element Update .............................................................. 2-12 2.5.2 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation ...................... 2-15 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ii 2.5.3 Main Street Program ..................................................................... 2-15 2.6 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................. 2-16 2.6.1 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................. 2-16 2.6.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories ........................................... 2-17 2.6.3 Housing Opportunity Site Description ............................................ 2-22 2.6.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential ...... 2-34 2.6.5 Other Sites .................................................................................... 2-37 2.7 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS ......................................... 2-39 2.7.1 Maximum Buildout Scenario .......................................................... 2-39 2.7.2 Buildout Projections for Future Site Development ......................... 2-40 2.8 PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................................................ 2-41 2.9 INTENDED USE OF THE PROGRAM EIR ..................................................... 2-42 2.9.1 List of Permits and Other Approvals .............................................. 2-42 2.9.2 List of Agencies ............................................................................. 2-42 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 3.0-1 3.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.1-1 3.1.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.1-3 3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 3.1-7 3.1.5 References ................................................................................... 3.1-8 3.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.2-9 3.2.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.2-14 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.2-28 3.2.5 References ................................................................................. 3.2-31 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.3-2 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.3-30 3.3.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.3-43 3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.3-53 3.3.5 References ................................................................................. 3.3-57 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.4-4 3.4.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.4-9 3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.4-15 3.4.5 References ................................................................................. 3.4-16 3.5 ENERGY ....................................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.5-1 3.5.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.5-6 3.5.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.5-11 3.5.5 References ................................................................................. 3.5-15 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iii 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................ 3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.6-2 3.6.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.6-4 3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 3.6-7 3.6.5 References ................................................................................... 3.6-8 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................ 3.7-1 3.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.7-1 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.7-5 3.7.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.7-10 3.7.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.7-19 3.7.5 References ................................................................................. 3.7-22 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.8-2 3.8.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.8-8 3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.8-12 3.8.5 References ................................................................................. 3.8-13 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................... 3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................ 3.9-4 3.9.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 3.9-7 3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.9-18 3.9.5 References ................................................................................. 3.9-21 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................... 3.10-1 3.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.10-1 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.10-4 3.10.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.10-7 3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.10-13 3.10.5 References ............................................................................... 3.10-16 3.11 NOISE ......................................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.11-1 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.11-8 3.11.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 3.11-17 3.11.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.11-26 3.11.5 References ............................................................................... 3.11-28 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................... 3.12-1 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.12-1 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.12-4 3.12.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 3.12-10 3.12.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.12-13 3.12.5 References ............................................................................... 3.12-17 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................... 3.13-1 3.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.13-1 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.13-3 3.13.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.13-7 3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.13-12 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iv 3.13.5 References ............................................................................... 3.13-16 3.14 RECREATION ............................................................................................. 3.14-1 3.14.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.14-1 3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.14-2 3.14.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.14-3 3.14.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.14-6 3.14.5 References ............................................................................... 3.14-10 3.15 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................... 3.15-1 3.15.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.15-1 3.15.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.15-4 3.15.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 3.15-11 3.15.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.15-17 3.15.5 References ............................................................................... 3.15-20 3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 3.16-1 3.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.16-1 3.16.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.16-3 3.16.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.16-5 3.16.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 3.16-8 3.16.5 References ................................................................................. 3.16-9 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................... 3.17-1 3.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 3.17-1 3.17.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................... 3.17-5 3.17.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 3.17-7 3.17.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.17-20 3.17.5 References ............................................................................... 3.17-22 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............ 4-1 4.2.1 No Project Alternative ..................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Consistency with Project Objectives ................................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Feasibility ........................................................................................ 4-2 4.3 METHODOLOGY AND SCREENING CRITERIA ............................................. 4-3 4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION............................................................................................ 4-4 4.4.1 Reduce Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and VMT Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-4 4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland ...................................................... 4-5 4.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 4-5 4.5.1 No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative ............................................ 4-5 4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ........................................ 4-12 5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ...................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth.......................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Expansion of Public Services .......................................................... 5-3 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT v 5.1.3 Encourage or Facilitate Economic Effects ....................................... 5-3 5.1.4 Encourage or Facilitate Environmental Effects of Growth ................ 5-3 5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................... 5-4 5.2.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................ 5-4 5.2.3 Public Services ............................................................................... 5-4 5.2.4 Recreation ....................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.5 Transportation ................................................................................. 5-5 5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ...................... 5-5 6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ..................................................... 6-1 6.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.1 Scenic Vistas .................................................................................. 6-2 6.1.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway ........................... 6-2 6.1.3 Light and Glare ............................................................................... 6-2 6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................ 6-2 6.2.1 Prime Farmland............................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Agricultural Zoning .......................................................................... 6-3 6.2.3 Forest Land and Timberland Zoning................................................ 6-3 6.2.4 Loss or Conversion of Forest Land.................................................. 6-3 6.2.5 Change to Existing Environment ..................................................... 6-3 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 6-3 6.3.1 Local Policies or Ordinances ........................................................... 6-3 6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1 Burial Sites ...................................................................................... 6-4 6.5 ENERGY .......................................................................................................... 6-4 6.5.1 Energy Plan .................................................................................... 6-4 6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................... 6-5 6.6.1 Seismic Hazard ............................................................................... 6-5 6.6.2 Erosion ............................................................................................ 6-6 6.6.3 Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil ......................................................... 6-6 6.6.4 Expansive Soil ................................................................................ 6-6 6.6.5 Septic Tanks ................................................................................... 6-7 6.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................... 6-7 6.7.1 Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials .......... 6-7 6.7.2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials .................................... 6-7 6.7.3 Emission of Hazardous Materials Near a School ............................. 6-7 6.7.4 Hazardous Materials Sites .............................................................. 6-8 6.7.5 Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan ...................................... 6-9 6.7.6 Wildland Fires ................................................................................. 6-9 6.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 6-9 6.8.1 Water Quality Standards ................................................................. 6-9 6.8.2 Erosion or Siltation ........................................................................ 6-10 6.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................... 6-11 6.9.1 Established Community ................................................................. 6-11 6.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 6-11 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT vi 6.10.1 Loss of Resource .......................................................................... 6-11 6.10.2 Resource Recovery Site ................................................................ 6-12 6.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 6-12 6.11.1 Displace Existing People or Housing ............................................. 6-12 6.12 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................... 6-13 6.12.1 Schools ......................................................................................... 6-13 6.12.2 Other Facilities .............................................................................. 6-13 6.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION .............................................................. 6-13 6.13.1 Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses ........................ 6-13 6.13.2 Emergency Access ....................................................................... 6-14 6.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................ 6-14 6.14.1 Solid Waste ................................................................................... 6-14 6.14.2 Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations .......................................... 6-15 6.15 WILDFIRE ...................................................................................................... 6-15 6.15.1 Emergency Response ................................................................... 6-15 6.15.2 Exacerbate Wildfire Risk ............................................................... 6-15 6.15.3 Associated Infrastructure ............................................................... 6-15 6.15.4 Expose People or Structures ......................................................... 6-16 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 7-1 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1: Summary of Impact for Each Resource ................................................. ES-8 Table ES-2: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................... ES-9 Table 1.2-1: NOP Comment Summary ......................................................................... 1-3 Table 1.2-2: Issues Determined Not to be Significant ................................................. 1-14 Table 2.1-1: Housing Element Update Buildout Assumption ........................................ 2-3 Table 2.3-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Designations .............................................. 2-8 Table 2.3-2: City of Seal Beach Zoning Code .............................................................. 2-9 Table 2.6-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations ..................... 2-16 Table 2.6-2: Housing Opportunity Sites Numbering ................................................... 2-18 Table 2.6-3: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) .......................... 2-19 Table 2.6-4: Proposed Rezone Sites .......................................................................... 2-20 Table 2.6-5: Housing Element Update Residential Development Potential Assumption ................................................................................................................. 2-36 Table 2.7-1: Buildout Conditions Utilized in CEQA Analysis ....................................... 2-39 Table 3.0-1: Environmental Resource Abbreviations ................................................. 3.0-5 Table 3.0-2: Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact and Method Evaluation ......... 3.0-7 Table 3.0-3: Cumulative Past, Present, and Probable Future Residential projects in the City and Surrounding Area ....................................................................... 3.0-9 Table 3.1-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Aesthetics ............................................ 3.1-7 Table 3.2-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-2: Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin ..................................... 3.2-5 Table 3.2-3: Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023) ...................................... 3.2-6 Table 3.2-4: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Threshold ...................................... 3.2-15 Table 3.2-5: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................................................................................. 3.2-20 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT vii Table 3.2-6: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... 3.2-21 Table 3.2-7: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) .............. 3.2-22 Table 3.2-8: Cumulative Project Related to Air Quality ............................................ 3.2-28 Table 3.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence ......... 3.3-8 Table 3.3-2: Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program ............................... 3.3-13 Table 3.3-3: Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence .... 3.3-17 Table 3.3-4: Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program ............................... 3.3-24 Table 3.3-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Biological Resources ......................... 3.3-54 Table 3.4-1: Previously Recorded BERD Resources .............................................. 3.4-11 Table 3.5-1: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................... 3.5-8 Table 3.5-2: Project Operations – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption .................. 3.5-10 Table 3.5-3: Cumulative Projects Related to Energy ............................................... 3.5-12 Table 3.7-1: Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ................................. 3.7-12 Table 3.7-2: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated)......... 3.7-12 Table 3.7-3: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) ............. 3.7-13 Table 3.7-4: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .............................................................................................. 3.7-17 Table 3.7-5: Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .............................................................................................. 3.7-18 Table 3.7-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............. 3.7-19 Table 3.9-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Hydrology and Water Quality ............. 3.9-19 Table 3.10-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Type Acreage 2003 ............................. 3.10-1 Table 3.10-2: Summary of City of Seal Beach Zoning Code.................................... 3.10-2 Table 3.10-3: City of Seal Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis ................... 3.10-10 Table 3.10-4: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis .............................................. 3.10-11 Table 3.10-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Land Use and Planning .................. 3.10-14 Table 3.11-1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ..................................................... 3.11-2 Table 3.11-2: Definition of Sound Measurements .................................................... 3.11-2 Table 3.11-3: Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .............................. 3.11-5 Table 3.11-4: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Criteria ................................... 3.11-5 Table 3.11-5: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ......................... 3.11-6 Table 3.11-6: Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................ 3.11-18 Table 3.11-7: Cumulative Projects Related to Noise ............................................. 3.11-27 Table 3.12-1: Seal Beach Historic Population Growth ............................................. 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Seal Beach Historic Dwelling Units Growth ....................................... 3.12-2 Table 3.12-3: Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................. 3.12-3 Table 3.12-4: Maximum Unit Buildout ................................................................... 3.12-12 Table 3.12-5: Realistic Unit Buildout Growth ......................................................... 3.12-12 Table 3.12-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Population and Housing ................. 3.12-13 Table 3.13-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Public Services .............................. 3.13-12 Table 3.14-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Recreation ....................................... 3.14-7 Table 3.15-1: Project Screening Criteria and Threshold ........................................ 3.15-11 Table 3.15-2: VMT Threshold of Significance ........................................................ 3.15-13 Table 3.15-3: VMT Analysis .................................................................................. 3.15-15 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT viii Table 3.15-4: Cumulative Projects Related to Transportation ................................ 3.15-17 Table 3.17-1: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ............................................................................................................ 3.17-15 Table 3.17-2: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ......................................................................................... 3.17-15 Table 3.17-3: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ........................................................ 3.17-16 Table 3.17-4: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ........................................................ 3.17-16 Table 3.17-5: Summary of Groundwater and Imported Water Sources for Project Retail Water Suppliers based on BPP of 85 Percent during dry years ........... 3.17-17 Table 3.17-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Utility and Service Systems ............ 3.17-21 Table 4.5-1: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Buildout Assumption .................... 4-6 Table 4.6-1: Project Alternative Impact Comparison .................................................. 4-13 Table 4.6-2: Project Alternatives Comparison to Project Objectives ........................... 4-13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Regional Location .................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-2: Housing Opportunity Sites ....................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-3: Housing Opportunity Site - 1780 Pacific Coast ......................................... 2-24 Figure 2-4: Housing Opportunity Site - Leisure World ................................................ 2-25 Figure 2-5: Housing Opportunity Site - 1101 Seal Beach Blvd/Accurate Storage ....... 2-28 Figure 2-6: Housing Opportunity Site - Shops at Rossmoor ....................................... 2-29 Figure 2-7: Housing Opportunity Site - Old Ranch Town Center ................................ 2-30 Figure 2-8: Housing Opportunity Site - Seal Beach Plaza .......................................... 2-32 Figure 2-9: Housing Opportunity Site - Seal Beach Center ........................................ 2-33 Figure 2-10: Housing Opportunity Site - 99 Marina Drive ........................................... 2-35 Figure 2-11: Main Street Program .............................................................................. 2-38 Figure 3-1: Cumulative Project Location.................................................................. 3.0-12 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and Written Comments Appendix B CalEEMod and Energy Calculations Appendix C Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix E Paleontological Resources Technical Report Appendix F VMT Tables Appendix G Water Supply Assessment IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report ix Acronyms and Abbreviation AB Assembly Bill ACBM Asbestos-containing building materials ADU Accessory dwelling unit AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan AFY acre feet per year AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zone ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BEA Basin Equity Assessment BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BPP Basin Production Percentage BRTR Biological Resources Technical Report CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAL EMA California Emergency Management Agency Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalGreen California Green Building Standards Code CalOSHA Californias Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CCC California Coastal Commission CCMP California Coastal Management Program CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CF4 perfluoromethane CH4 methane CIP Capital Improvement Program City City of Seal Beach IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report x CMP Congestion Management Plan CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNNDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society County Orange County CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act C2F6 perfluoroethane C3F8 perfluoropropane C4F8 perfluorocyclobutane C4F10 perfluorobutane C5F12 perfluoropentane C6F14 perfluorohexane DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB decibel dB(A) A-weighted decibel DCH Designated Critical Habitat DPM Diesel particulate matter DOF Department of Finance DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EDD Employment Development Department EIR Environmental Impact Report EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EO Executive Order EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPSA Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 1975 EQCB Environmental Quality Control Board ESA environmental site assessment EV Electric vehicle FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report xi FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FGS California Fish and Game Code FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FR Federal Register FTA Federal Transit Administration GC General Commercial California GC California Government Code GHG Greenhouse gas GMP Growth Management Plan GPCD gallons per capita per day GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan GSWC Golden State Water Company GWh gigawatt GWP global warming potential GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System g/L grams per liter HAP hazardous air pollutant HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC hydrofluorocarbon HOT high occupancy toll hp horsepower HRA Health risk assessment HRER Historical Resource Evaluation Report HSC California Health and Safety Code HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC Heating, ventilation, air conditioning Hz Hertz H2S Hydrogen sulfide IRA Inflation Reduction Act I-405 Interstate 405 I/L Ratio Improvement-to-land value ratio JFTB Joint Forces Training Base LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCP Local Coastal Program LC/RMD Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report xii Ldn Day-night sound level Leq Equivalent sound level LEV Low-Emission Vehicle LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Lmax Maximum sound level Lmin Minimum sound level LOS Level of service LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan LSAA Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement LUST Leaking underground storage tank Lxx Percentile-exceeded sound level MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MC/RHD Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MLD Most Likely Descendant MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTCO2e/year metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NF3 nitrogen trifluoride NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOC Notice of Completion NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NPAA Native Plant Protection Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule N2O nitrous oxide IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report xiii OC San Orange County Sanitation District OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model OCWD Orange County Water District OE Oil Extraction OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHP California Office of Historic Preservation OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration O3 ozone Pb lead PC California Penal Code PD Planned Development PDA Priority Development Areas PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program PFC perfluorocarbon PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter ppm parts per billion ppm parts per million PPV Peak particle velocity PRC California Public Resources Code Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project PTO Permit to Operate RA Replenishment Assessment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFS renewable fuel standards RHD Residential High Density RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation ROG reactive organic gases RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient SAP Safety Action Plan SBPD Seal Beach Police Department SC Service Commercial SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report xiv SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCC Species of Special Concern SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SLR Sea level rise SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company SOV Single occupant vehicles SO2 sulfur dioxide SPL Sound pressure level SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area STC Sound transmission class SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Wate Resources Control Board TAC Toxic air contaminants TAZ Traffic analysis zone TDM Transportation Demand Management TIA Transportation Impact Analysis TNW traditional navigable waters USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT Vehicle miles traveled VOC Volatile organic compounds WOCWB West Orange County Water Board WOTUS Waters of the United States WSA Water Supply Assessment WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan ZEV Zero emission vehicles µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ºF Fahrenheit IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section presents an overview of the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This executive summary also provides conclusions of the analyses contained in Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a summary of the alternatives to the Project, and issues to be resolved. For a complete description of the Project, refer to Section 2.0, Project Description. For a discussion of alternatives to the Project, see Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the Project. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision-makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making. CEQA requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Division 13, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) to determine if the Project could have a significant impact on the environment. Information for this Draft EIR was obtained through analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation). The City of Seal Beach (City) as the Lead Agency has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted draft plans, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgement including relying on applicable City of Seal Beach technical personnel and consultants and review of all technical reports. ES.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This Draft EIR has been prepared to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are: To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of the proposed activities. To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. To prevent environmental impacts through implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. To disclose significant environmental effects, To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-2 To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the CEQA statue and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of any environmental consequences associated with a proposed project which may have the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and if needed, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. ES.1.1 EIR Organization This Draft EIR is arranged into the following sections, which contain the contents of an EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15120 through 15132. Section ES: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary provides a summary of the Project and the project alternatives, including a summary of project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation for each environmental issue. Section 1.0: Introduction. The Introduction provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process and describes the purpose, scope, and components of this Draft EIR. Section 2.0: Project Description. The Project Description provides a detailed description of the Project, including the location and project characteristics. The intended uses of this Draft EIR, project background, project objectives, and required discretionary approvals are also addressed. Section 3.0: Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Analysis analyzes the environmental effects of the Project. Impacts are organized into major environmental topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, regulatory setting, methods, thresholds of significance, Housing Element Update policies, impact analysis, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topic areas that are addressed in Section 3.0 include the following: Section 3.1: Aesthetics Section 3.2: Air Quality Section 3.3: Biological Resources Section 3.4: Cultural Resources Section 3.5: Energy Section 3.6: Geology and Soils Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning Section 3.11: Noise Section 3.12: Population and Housing Section 3.13: Public Services Section 3.14: Recreation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-3 Section 3.15: Transportation Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems Section 4.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes and compares the proposed alternatives to the Project. Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations. The Other CEQA Considerations section provides a summary of significant environmental effects, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth-inducing impacts. Section 6.0: Effects Found Not to Be Significant. This section provides a summary of project impacts that have been determined, through preparation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), to result in a less than significant impact or no impact. Section 7.0: List of Preparers. The List of Preparers section provides a list of the various individuals who contributed to the preparation of this Draft EIR. Appendices. The appendices contain the NOP (including comments) and technical studies prepared to support the analyses and conclusions in this Draft EIR. ES.1.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to: Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA with the City of Seal Beach as the Lead Agency. This EIR assesses the potential environmental consequences of implementing the Project and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the Project that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. This EIR is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the general public as to the nature of the Project’s potential environmental impacts. ES.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ES.2.1 Project Location The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, roughly 8 square miles of which is dedicated to the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 2-1). • • m • CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-4 ES.2.2 Project Summary The Project evaluated in this Program EIR involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which includes establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The site inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects. The Housing Opportunity Sites include a total of eight sites that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation (Figure 2-2). The sites are broken into two categories: (1) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Beyond the site inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program in its Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed on the second floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project is a proposed 155-acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. A detailed project description is provided in Section 2.0, Project Description of this Draft EIR. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-5 ES.2.3 Project Objectives In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15124, the following primary objectives support the Project’s purpose, assist the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, and ultimately aid decision-makers in preparing findings and overriding considerations, if necessary. Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. Affirmatively further fair housing. ES.2.4 Lists of Permits and Other Approvals The Project evaluated in this EIR is comprised of implementation of the Housing Element Update and establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Project does not propose any site development on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Future developments would occur on the Housing Opportunity Sites as market conditions allow at the discretion of the individual property owners. The anticipated permits, approvals and consultation required for the Project include: Certification of CEQA document Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Change of Zone Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment In addition to the amendments included as part of the Project, approval of various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 amendments may be required for the Housing Opportunity Sites ultimately included in the Housing Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-6 ES.2.5 List of Agencies It is anticipated that approval of the Housing Element Update from the following agencies will be required: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission, City of Seal Beach City Council, and California Department of Housing and Community Development. Likewise, the City of Seal Beach City Council would certify and adopt this Housing Element Update EIR. ES.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA for the initiation of environmental review, on November 16, 2023, the City sent a NOP to the State Clearinghouse [SCH No. 2023110425], responsible and trustee government agencies, organizations, and individuals potentially interested in the project. The NOP requested that agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe that authority and identify relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Interested members of the public were also invited to comment. The NOP also included the Initial Study which was prepared to identify any resources that was determined to not have any potentially significant impacts. The analysis provided in the Initial Study included 13 Housing Opportunity Sites and did not include the Main Street Program. However, as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Initial Study was reduced to the eight Housing Opportunity Sites analyzed in this Draft EIR and the Main Street Program was added as a component of the Project. The modifications to the components of the Project analyzed in the Draft EIR and Initial Study was a result of comment received from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the City’s Housing Element Update. The comment period for the NOP and Initial Study was set for November 16, 2023, through December 15, 2023. The NOP/Initial Study and the comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to: 1. Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-7 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. ES.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Project alternatives and their potential impacts are discussed in Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this Draft EIR. As authorized under CEQA, the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the Project. No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that certification of the Housing Element Update would not occur and the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of specific parcels proposed as part of the Project would not occur. The six rezone sites identified for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites would not be rezoned to the new MC/RHD zoning district and would continue to be zoned its existing zoning designations. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes to amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second story of structures within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not occur. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the buildout assumptions for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would be 218 residential units based on the existing zoning designations. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the Housing Element and Zone Code Updates would not be implemented by the City, land use densities and zoning would remain unchanged, and development would be consistent with the existing zoning designation. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in less impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, population and housing, and utilities and service systems compared to the Project. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. Finally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts to land use and planning compared to the Project. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to public services, recreation, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would not help the City meet its RHNA requirements as it would not plan for enough residential units. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet most of the Project objectives. ES.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table ES-1, Summary of Impact for Each Resource, provides a summary of the level of significance determined for each resource topics analyzed in the Initial Study and Draft EIR. Table ES-2, Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the potential environmental effects of the Project, the recommended mitigation measures, if applicable, and the level of significance after mitigation as outlined in the Initial Study and this Draft EIR for each impact question required to be analyzed per CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. All eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are anticipated to have the same level of impact as identified in Table ES-2 and mitigation measures m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-8 identified in Table ES-2 would apply to all future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR and therefore impact findings associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not made in this EIR and are not included in the tables below. Per CEQA Section 15093, should the Project be approved as proposed, any impact noted in the summary as “significant” after mitigation would require the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. As shown in Table ES-2, development of the Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations would be required. Additionally, CEQA requires public agencies to establish a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures identified in an EIR and/or adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts identified in an EIR. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of the Final EIR. Table ES-1: Summary of Impact for Each Resource Resource Level of Significance Aesthetics Less Than Significant Impact Agricultural and Forestry Resources No Impact Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Impact Biological Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Energy Less Than Significant Impact Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Impact Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Impact Mineral Resources No Impact Noise Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Population and Housing Less Than Significant Impact Public Services Significant and Unavoidable Impact Recreation Significant and Unavoidable Impact Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Impact Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Wildfire No Impact I I 7 - ~ - - - - - - - >--- ~ - - ~ r-- - -- ~ - L - m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-9Table ES-2: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresImpact Level of Significance Before MitigationMitigation Measure Level of Significance After MitigationInitial Study Section 3.1 Aesthetics (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact AES-a:The Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact AES-b:The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AES-d: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact AG-a:The Project would not 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. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AG-b:The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.No ImpactNone required.No ImpactImpact AG-c:The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or No ImpactNone required.No Impactm CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-10ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)). Impact AG-d: The Project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AG-e: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.No ImpactNone required.No ImpactInitial Study Section 3.4 Biological Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact BIO-e: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as trees preservation policy or ordinance.Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.5 Cultural Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact CUL-c: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.6 Energy Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact EN-b: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.7 Geology and Soils (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact GEO-a: The Project would notdirectly or indirectly cause potential Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-11ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation substantial adverse effects, including the risk or loss, injury, or death involving: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 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact iv. Landslides.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-b:The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-c: The Project would not be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-d: The Project would not belocated on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-12ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact GEO-e: The Project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.No Impact None required. No Impact Initial Study Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact HAZ-a: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-b: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-c: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-d: The Project would not 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. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-f: The Project would notimpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-13ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact HAZ-g: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact HYD-a: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HYD-c: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i. Result in substantial soil erosion on or offsite Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact LU-a: The Project would not physically divide an established community. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.12 Mineral Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact MIN-a: The Project would not 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.No ImpactNone required. No ImpactImpact MIN-b: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally No ImpactNone required. No Impactm CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-14ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Initial Study Section 3.14 Population and Housing (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact POP-b: The Project would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.15 Public Services (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact PUB-a: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: iii. Schools v. Other Public Facilities Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.17 Transportation (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact TRANS-c: The Project would not substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact TRANS-d: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-15ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Initial Study Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact UTIL-d: The Project would notgenerate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact UTIL-e: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.20 Wildfire (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant)Impact WF-a: The Project would notsubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact None required. No ImpactImpact WF-b: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.No ImpactNone required. No ImpactImpact WF-c: The Project would notrequire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.No ImpactNone required. No ImpactImpact WF-d: The Project would notexpose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream No ImpactNone required. No Impactm CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-16ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Draft EIR Section 3.1 Aesthetics Impact AES-1: In an urbanized area, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Potentially Significant Impact MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: Significant and Unavoidable Impact • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-17ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by California Air Resources Board (CARB). Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-18ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Prohibition of natural gas hearths. Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) content (0 to 10 g/L). Impact AQ-2: The Project would 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. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required.Significant and Unavoidable Impact Impact AQ-3: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required.Significant and Unavoidable Impact MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any future development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-19ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. Impact AQ-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.3 Biological ResourcesImpact BIO-1: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potentially Significant Impact MM BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all projects must provide documentation that the site does not include special-status or protected plant and wildlife species. If the species are found on the site, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance activities. The documentation shall ensure that botanical surveys are conducted during the appropriate blooming period and any nesting bird surveys are conducted during the appropriate avian nesting season. If no special-status species are found on the project site, no additional action is necessary and the project can continue. If special-status species are found, no ground disturbance can occur and the project must either avoid the special-status species, or develop a mitigation plan approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If offsite replacement is the only mitigation option available, the performance criteria shall be at a ratio specified by the resource agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation MM BIO-2: Mitigation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City, the USFWS, and CDFW which shall m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-20ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. MM BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys.Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit) for future development projects facilitated by the Project, project applicants shall complete a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations within the project site. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determined that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, and the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the preconstruction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the City. Impact BIO-2: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.No ImpactNone required.No ImpactImpact BIO-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but No ImpactNone required.No Impactm CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-21ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impact BIO-4: The Project would not 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 native wildlife nursery sites. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact BIO-5: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No Impact None required. No Impact Draft EIR Section 3.4 Cultural ResourcesImpact CUL-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. Potentially Significant Impact MM CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources.Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER should involve a California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) and California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) records search and preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not been previously identified Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-22ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for NRHP, CRHR, and local landmark eligibility per NPS, OHP, and City guidelines. All evaluated resources should be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Impact CUL-2:The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Potentially Significant Impact MM CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The qualified archeologist shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation MM CUL-3: Human Remains. The City shall use the development review process to identify human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coronerdetermines the remains to m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-23ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation be Native American then: (1) the coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours; (2) the NAHC would identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native American; (3) the most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Draft EIR Section 3.5 Energy Impact EN-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact Impact EN-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.6 Geology and SoilsImpact GEO-1:The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Potentially Significant Impact MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator shall be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project-specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should be outlined in a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include: A Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training developed by the Project Paleontologist that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-24ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation resources during construction to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designated representative to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. Fulltime paleontological monitoring when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential, which is expected to occur when work exceeds 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or when work occurs at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. Procedures to follow in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, including work stoppage in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, assessment by the Project Paleontologist, and, should the fossils be of scientific importance, collection and curation in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. A Paleontological Monitoring Report documenting the results of the mitigation program. Draft EIR Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas EmissionsImpact GHG-1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact MM GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: Significant and Unavoidable Impact • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-25ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include offsite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-26ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; oProvide parking cash-out programs; m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-27ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation oImplement or provide access to commute reduction program; e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining onsite mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Impact GHG-2: The Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 are required. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Draft EIR Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsImpact HAZ-1: The Project would not, 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, result in a safety Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-28ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Draft EIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water QualityImpact HYD-1: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.Less ThanSignificant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact Impact HYD-2:The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; iii) 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; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. Potentially Significant Impact MM HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost shall be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Impact HYD-3:The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-29ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact HYD-4:The Project would notconflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.11 NoiseImpact NOI-1: The Project could result in a generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Potentially Significant Impact MM NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan. Project applicants shall describe and commit to a mitigation plan that will be developed when the information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures. The objective of the plan should be to minimize construction using all reasonable (e.g., cost vs. benefit) and feasible (e.g., possible to construct) means available. Components of a mitigation plan may include some or all of the following provisions, which should also be specified in construction contracts. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques available. (e.g., mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-30ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Stockpiling shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction traffic shall be limited to approved haul routes. Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receptors. Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. The total noise level produced will not be substantially greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. During the entire active construction period, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. Impact NOI-2: The Project could result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Potentially Significant Impact MM NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-31ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. A qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer shall conduct this noise and vibration analysis. The vibration levels shall not exceed the Caltrans damage thresholds listed in the table below. If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec)Transient SourcesContinuous/Frequent SourcesExtremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile1buildings 0.30 0.12Historic and some old buildings0.50 0.20 Older2residential structure 0.70 0.30 New residential structures 1.2 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-32ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Notes: Transient sources again create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seal equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 1 A fragile building is considered one where the structural components are weakened due to age, poor construction materials, or significant deterioration, making it susceptible to damage from even minor stress. 2 An older building refers to a structure that has been around for a considerable period of time, regardless of its current structural integrity, with factors like construction materials, maintenance history, and design playing a role in determining its overall condition. Source: Caltrans 2020 Impact NOI-3: For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.12 Population and HousingImpact POP-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-33ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Draft EIR Section 3.13 Public ServicesImpact PUB-1: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? o Fire protection o Police protection o Parks Potentially Significant Impact MM PUB-1: Parks and Recreation. Subsequent environmental review at a project specific level shall be required for individual development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The environmental analysis shall include an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of individual development projects under the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update shall be mitigated to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s required contribution to the City related to parkland dedication and payment of required fees as required by Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, shall be determined at the time of subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.14 Recreation Impact REC-1:The Project would 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.Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would be required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Impact REC-2: The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would be required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.15 TransportationImpact TRANS-1: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-34ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impact TRANS-2: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). Potentially Significant Impact MM TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. Individual projects that do not screen out from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines. As described in the Guidelines, Projects which result in a significant impact shall provide VMT mitigation, which could consist of, but not be limited to, the following: Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the Project. Provision of offsite infrastructure improvements including roadway improvements for active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or offsite multimodal improvements. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TRIB-1:The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact MM TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements. Any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area shall consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative. The project shall be analyzed in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on an individual project level to identify any existing tribal cultural resources that may be onsite. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be onsite, the appropriate tribal group shall be consulted. If additional tribal consultation is determined to be required, it shall be conducted in conformance with AB 52, SB 18, and CEQA requirements. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-35ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation i) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. MM TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that additional significant site(s) or resource(s) not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but are later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites shall be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, lead agency, and the applicable tribe(s) to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with California Environmental Quality Act requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be contacted and notified of the discovery. Draft EIR Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-1: The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation. All projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program shall be required to provide supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed site would require improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities to meet the state, County, and local standards and requirements to serve the specific site location. If improvements are required due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the specific site location, the proposed development may be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to all or some combination of the following: Regarding Housing Opportunity Site 8 development: Additional 12-inch water main to connect to the existing 8-inch water main at Corsair Way and Caravel Way to mitigate fire flow deficiencies.Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive SummaryES-36ImpactLevel of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Payment of impact fees, as calculated by the City’s impact fee schedule, proportionate to the project’s fair share contributions to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, designed to state, County, and local standards and requirements, to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed future development shall be required to contribute payment of required fees at the time of building permit issuance. Impact UTIL-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact UTIL-3: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.Less Than Significant Impact None required.Less Than Significant Impact • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-37 ES.7 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR The Draft EIR will be available for public review for the statutory 45-day review period and will circulate from May 9, 2025 to June 23, 2025. During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. The City of Seal Beach encourages the electronic submission of comments. Send your comments to Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, via email at: planning@sealbeachca.gov. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the City of Seal Beach's proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq .) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000, et seq .). This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the Project. 1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CEQA requires public agencies to identify, disclose, and consider the potential environmental impacts of proposed discretionary actions that lead agencies are considering for approval. A project that may have a significant impact on the environment cannot be approved unless the lead agency makes the approval contingent upon the implementation of mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that impact to the extent feasible. When a project may have significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR before it considers whether to approve the project. The City of Seal Beach (City), as the lead agency for the Project, has prepared this Draft EIR for public review and comment. As discussed below, the Draft EIR will be available for review and comment by public agencies and the general public for a period of 45 days. Prior to considering the Project, the City will prepare a Final EIR that includes the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, a list of commenters, and any revisions being made to the Draft EIR in response to the comments. The Final EIR will be considered by the City 's discretionary bodies when taking action on the Project. 1.1.1 Purpose of Environmental Impact Report CEQA requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft EIR has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and meet the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the Project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The lead agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment" (CEQA Section 21067). The City of Seal Beach has the principal responsibility for approval of the Project. For this reason, the City of Seal Beach is the CEQA lead agency for this Project. The intent of the Draft EIR is to provide sufficient 11 1-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City of Seal Beach to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 2.9.1, List of Permits and Other Approvals . 1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report This is a Program EIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update and related Zoning Code Update. This EIR serves as a Program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b), use of a Program EIR can provide advantages, including : 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and 5. Allow reduction in paperwork. As a Program EIR , this document focuses on the overall effects of the Project and is a discussion of cumulative impacts evaluating the entirety of the action . The analysis does not examine the effects of any project on a specific property that may occur during the lifespan of the Project. Any impacts associated with development that are not fully evaluated within the scope of this EIR may require further environmental analysis . However, the City envisions that this Program EIR may be used to eliminate or reduce the scope of future environmental review for individual projects that are consistent with the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21083 .3 and other streamlining provisions authorized by CEQA. For a complete listing of environmental topics covered in this Draft EIR , see Section 3.0 , Environmental Analysis. 1.2 SCOPE OF DRAFT EIR Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall focus an EIR discussion on potentially significant environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not significant (PRC Section 21002.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15128). A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this Project based on review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the Project and comments received as part of the public scoping process (Appendix A), as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of this Draft EIR. This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on 11 1-2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction December 15, 2023. The Public Scoping Meeting on the Draft EIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023. The comments received on the NOP and during the Public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIR. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The City has determined that the Project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts on the following resources, which are addressed in detail in this Draft EIR. • Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning • Air Quality • Noise • Biological Resources • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Energy • Recreation • Geology and Soils • Transportation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality Please refer to Section 1.2 .1, Environmental Issues Determined Not to be Significant, for a list of environmental issues determined not to be significant. Table 1.2-1 lists the comment letters received during the Project scoping period . Table 1.2-1: NOP Comment Summary Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR California Department of December The comment letter identified the Potential impacts related to topics Transportation 15 ,2023 agency's support for opportunities identified by the commenter are (Caltrans)/Scott Shelley for affordable housing and provided in the following sections : provided specific guidelines that • Draft EIR Section 3 .15, they would like incorporated into Transportation the future planning of roadways, bikeways, parking, pedestrian circulation, and transit services . The comment letter also provided impact analysis guidelines to be utilized for analysis of transportation related impacts and identified potential permits that may be required to meet Caltrans' guidelines. The comment letter stated they are requestino a Transportation 11 1-3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR Impact Analysis (TIA) be prepared to assess and address potential impacts from future developments . Department of Toxic December The comment letter stated the Potential impacts related to topics Substances Control 14 ,2023 Project encompasses multiple identified by the commenter are (DTSC)/Tamara Purvis active and nonactive mitigation provided in the following sections : and clean-up sites that may be • Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards impacted as a result of the and Hazardous Materials Project and may restrict what Draft EIR Section 6 .0, Effects construction activities are • permissible in the Project areas in Found Not to be Significant order to avoid impacts to human health and environment. The comment letter stated due to the broad scope of the Project, they are unable to determine if the Project sites are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, be listed on a list of hazardous materials sites and therefore, recommends providing future information on the Project site and areas that may fall under DTSC oversight. City of Long Beach December The comment letter outlined their The comment is noted . The Community 15,2023 general support for the Project. comment provided does not identify Development specific environmental concerns Department/Alejandro related to the Project and does not Sanchez-Lopez require a response for the purposes ofCEQA. Anne S. Calvo December The commenter stated the The comment regarding removal of 8,2023 Leisure World Housing Leisure World as a Housing Opportunity Site should be Opportunity Site is noted ; however, removed from the list of Housing the comment does not identify Opportunity Sites stating the specific environmental concerns proposed area is an RV storage related to the Project and does not site reserved for Leisure World require a response for the purposes residents as an amenity. of CEQA. The remaining topics Additionally, the commenter listed outlined in the comment letter are impacts would result to analyzed in the following sections : aesthetics, air quality due to • Draft EIR Section 3 .1, additional vehicles, energy use Aesthetics and demand, reduce quality of life Draft EIR Section 3 .2, Air due to increased population and • limiting access to existing Quality amenities, increased noise, • Draft EIR Section 3 .5, Energy increased demand to public • Draft EIR Section 3 .8, Hazards services, eliminate residents and Hazardous Materials access to RVs and access to recreational opportunities, traffic • Draft EIR Section 3 .10, Land congestion, and increased utility Use and Planning demands. • Draft EIR Section 3.11, Noise 11 1-4 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR • Draft EIR Section 3 .12, Population and Housing • Draft EIR Section 3 .13, Public Services • Draft EIR Section 3 .14 , Recreation • Draft EIR Section 3 .15 , Transportation • Draft EIR Section 3 .17 , Utilities and Service Systems Schelly Sustarsic December The commenter stated the Potential impacts related to topics 15 ,2023 Project would result in the identified by the commenter are following impacts : aesthetics provided in the following sections : (views blocked , open space • Draft EIR Section 3 .1, removed , glare), biological Aesthetics resources (wetlands and tree Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air preservation), energy (increased • demand and adequate Quality infrastructure), geology and soils • Draft EIR Section 3 .3, Biological (fault lines and liquefaction), Resources hazards and hazardous materials • Draft EIR Section 3 .5, Energy (existing gas line), hydrology and water quality (potential flooding), • Draft EIR Section 3 .8 , Hazards land use and planning and Hazardous Materials (Consistency with Los Alamitos • Draft EIR Section 3 .9 , Joint Forces Training Base Hydrology and Water Quality (JFTB)), noise (noise from Los • Draft EIR Section 3 .10, Land Alamitos JFTB), recreation Use and Planning (increased demand for parks), transportation (circulation , • Draft EIR Section 3.11, Noise increased vehicle miles traveled • Draft EIR Section 3 .12 , (VMT), emergency vehicle Population and Housing access), tribal (potential tribal • Draft EIR Section 3 .13, Public artifacts and remains located Services within the City), and cumulative effects . • Draft EIR Section 3 .14, Recreation • Draft EIR Section 3 .15, Transportation • Draft EIR Section 3 .16, Tribal Cultural Resources • Draft EIR Section 3 .17, Utilities and Service Systems • Draft EIR Section 6 .0, Effects Found Not to be Significant Theresa Miller December The commenter stated they The comment is noted and has been 15 ,2023 appreciated the scoping meeting shared with the Planning and agree with the concerns Commission . The comment does discussed during the meeting . not identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the purposes of CEQA. 11 1-5 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR Kurt Bourhenne December The comment letter stated The comment provided are political 11,2023 construction of residential uses at in nature and is not applicable to the Leisure World Housing CEQA. Therefore, response is not Opportunity Site would deprive required . The topic of sunlight is not Leisure World residents of a required topic of analysis under sunlight and shared political CEQA and therefore, is not further views regarding the Project. analyzed . Aaron and Barbara December The commenter stated their The comment is noted and has been Groseclose 14,2023 opposition for the Leisure World shared with the Planning Housing Opportunity Site as it Commission . The comment does would take away the RV Club not identify specific environmental amenity at the site . concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the purposes of CEQA. Alan Hunter December The commenter stated their The comment is noted and has been 12,2023 opposition for the Leisure World shared with the Planning Housing Opportunity Site as it Commission . The comment does would take away the RV lot not identify specific environmental amenity at the site . concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the purposes of CEQA. Bert van der Veer December Stated their opposition for the The comment is noted and has been 14,2023 Leisure World Housing shared with the Planning Opportunity Site as it would take Commission . The comment does away the RV lot amenity at the not identify specific environmental site . concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the purposes of CEQA. Lori Gray December Stated their opposition for the The comment is noted and has been 13,2023 Leisure World Housing shared with the Planning Opportunity Site as it would take Commission . The comment does away the RV lot amenity at the not identify specific environmental site . concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the purposes of CEQA. Catherine Showalter December The commenter provided a list of The comments are noted and have 7,2023 spelling and grammatical errors been shared with the City . This Draft discovered in the Initial Study EIR does not include a revision to document and provided the Initial Study section and all requested revisions to the Initial applicable spelling and grammatical Study. revisions have been incorporated . The comment does not require further response . Adrianne Rosenfeld December The commenter stated their The comments provided are 11,2023 personal opinion that housing will personal opinions and political views not be constructed within Leisure in nature and are not applicable to World and shared personal CEQA. Therefore, response is not political beliefs . required . Susan Perrell December The commenter stated potential The comments are noted and have 7,2023 impacts to environmental, been shared with the Planning historical and cultural resources, Division . Potential impacts not and oublic services should be scooed out durina the Initial Studv 11 1-6 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR more deeply studied in the EIR process are expanded upon and than the Initial Study suggests . discussed in more detail in this EIR. The commenter stated each The level of analysis provided in this individual Housing Opportunity EIR is in accordance with CEQA Site should be discussed in its requirements . This EIR is a own separate EIRs and stated programmatic document and does they disagree with the not analyze the potential impacts of programmatic nature of the EIR. each individual Housing Opportunity The commenter stated potential Sites as no actual development is impacts to resource topics currently proposed on these sites . discussed in the EIR need to be When a development project is addressed on a site specific proposed on these sites in the basis . Additionally, the future, each proposed development commenter disagrees with the would require its own individual level of significance identified for environmental analysis to address impacts in the Initial Study and site specific impacts . stated the Program EIR needs to be revisited and updated when a Potential impacts to aesthetics are specific project is later proposed or a separate project EIR needs discussed in Draft EIR Section 3 .1, to be prepared . Aesthetics . Potential impacts related to commerce are not a resource topic under CEQA and therefore, is The commenter stated potential not analyzed in this EIR. impacts to commerce and aesthetics should be discussed As stated in the Initial Study as well and needs to analyze placing new residential parking within as in Draft EIR Section 3 .8, Hazards existing commercial parking and Hazardous Materials, and areas and assess if and where Section 6 .0, Effects Found Not to be there is an excess of parking. Significant, future individual developments proposed on identified Housing Opportunity Sites The commenter stated Housing would require individual Opportunity Site 8 (Housing environmental review to analyze Opportunity Site 8 in the Initial potential impacts and would be Study has been renumbered to required to prepare an Housing Opportunity Site 7 in the Environmental Site Assessment to Draft EIR) appears to be listed on assess any existing onsite Geo Tracker and needs to study contamination and determine if the feasibility of clean up to residential development is feasible residential standards. within the site . The commenter noted that Housing Opportunity Site 10, also Housing Opportunity Site 10 referred to as the Old Ranch identified in the Initial Study is Country Club or the Old Ranch prone to historic flooding and Country Club Pipeline Project, needs analysis in the EIR. identified in the Initial Study, is no Additionally, the commenter longer defined as a Housing stated the EIR should consider Opportunity Site . Instead, the Old impacts to capacity of stormwater Ranch Country Club is defined as a systems and infrastructure and pipeline project. This proposed water quality as well as analyze pipeline project is a component of a the requirements for flood larger specific plan proposal being insurance in project areas and if evaluated by the City in a areas with hiah flood insurance standalone EIR. However, the 167 11 1-7 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR costs can serve lower income units proposed within the Old Ranch residents . Country Club Pipeline Project count towards the City's Regional Housing The commenter stated impacts to Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements . Therefore , the 167 cultural resources and the proposed units from the Old Ranch potential loss of historic Country Club Pipeline Project are structures, specifically to Main evaluated at a programmatic level Street's historic resources need as a basis for impl ications to be discussed and analyzed in associated with housing production the EIR. only within this EIR , including potential impacts to stormwater The commenter stated an systems and infrastructure and Avoidance , Mitigation, and water quality . Monitoring Plan should be developed that would specify The topic of flood insurance costs is administrative mechanisms to not a required topic of analysis assure measures are under CEQA and therefore , is not implemented and enforced . further analyzed . The commenter stated the EIR Impacts related to cultural resources should analyze water supply by and historic structures are analyzed comparing current demand with in Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural that post-project and determine if Resources . water supply would be available . Additionally , the commenter stated impacts to wastewater As part of the EIR , a Mitigation , infrastructure should be analyzed . Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) would be developed that The commenter requested describes all mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The MMRP transportation noise and HVAC would also specify the timing of noise be analyzed and mitigated implementation , specify the in the EIR as well as noise responsible party for the mitigation, sources from Los Alamitos . and the monitoring frequency of the proposed mitigation to ensure the The commenter requested mitigation measures are impacts to response and implemented and enforced. evacuation times be analyzed and mitigated . Potential impacts related to water and wastewater infrastructure , and The commenter stated mitigation water supply are discussed in Draft should be required for developers EIR Section 3.17 , Utilities and to prevent impacts to recreation . Service Systems. The analysis includes a comparison of the The commenter states impacts to existing and projected demand for the City with the projected demand transportation systems should be that would result from buildout of the analyzed in the EIR. Project . The commenter stated the EIR Potential noise related impacts , should analyze potential including noise resulting from cumulative impacts . transportation, stationary equipment, and Los Alamitos JFTB are 11 1-8 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR The commenter provided discussed in Draft EIR Section 3 .11, revisions and text edits that they Noise. would like to be made to the Initial Study . Impacts related to public service such as police and fire services are The commenter stated the EIR discussed in Draft EIR Section 3 .13, should require open space and Public Services . tree planting and maintenance as part of each development project Potential impacts related to to mitigate atmospheric carbon recreation are analyzed and , if and provide shade . required , mitigated in Draft EIR Section 3 .13 , Public Services , and Section 3 .14 , Recreation . Potential impacts to transportation systems are analyzed in Draft EIR Section 3 .15 , Transportation . An analysis of potential cumulative impacts is included in each resource section of the Draft EIR. The cumulative analysis analyzes whether the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects , would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. This Draft EIR does not include a revision to the Initial Study section and all applicable revisions have been incorporated . The comment does not require further response . Potentially significant impacts identified in this EIR are mitigated to the extent feasible . The City has existing requirements for tree planting, landscape maintenance, and required open space for new developments in its Zone Code . All individual projects proposed in the future at one of the Project sites would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements . The request for mitigation requiring open space and tree plantings have been noted ; however, this mitigation is not identified to be required for the Project to reduce impacts. Gary Allen December Commissioner Allen requested This comment was provided during (Environmental Quality 6 ,2023 additional information regarding the in-person public scoping 11 1-9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR Control Board (EQCB) what is analyzed as the Project meeting . The comment was Board Member) as there is no guarantee that all responded to by Staniec staff who or any of the identified residential stated that the worst-case scenario units may be constructed as a is analyzed to provide flexibility for result of the Project. future potential developments within the identified Project site and provide an adequate buffer for the analysis . As the comments provided does not identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project, additional analysis is not required . Donald Horning (EQCB December Commissioner Horning requested This comment was provided during Board Member) 6,2023 for a definition of an underutilized the in-person public scoping site . The commenter asked if all meeting . The comment was the proposed developments are responded to by Staniec staff and consistent with the safety plan City staff who responded to the (General Plan safety element) specific questions and outlined the and requested additional process of the EIR, how impacts are information regarding the determined, what information is certification process of the EIR, utilized, and outlined the different who the ultimate decisions topics the EIR covers . As the makers are, process of evaluating comment provided does not identify the sites, site specific studies, specific environmental concerns how levels of impacts are related to the Project, additional determined, and who bears the analysis is not required . costs of environmental assessments . Additionally, the The EIR includes an analysis of commenter questioned whether there would be coordination with potential transportation and traffic other environmental studies being related impacts in Draft EIR Section prepared in the City. 3 .15, Transportation . This section includes an analysis of potential traffic related impacts resulting from The commenter brought up increased population and vehicle potential impacts involving traffic usage; however, it does not take within the Leisure World Housing into account the driving abilities of a Opportunity Site stating the particular population as CEQA senior population there are requires an evaluation of the sensitive in terms of driving Project's potential impacts on the abilities . environment. Catherine Showalter December Commissioner Showalter This comment was provided during (EQCB Board Member) 6,2023 questioned why a particular the in-person public scoping document was utilized in the meeting . The comment was Initiative Study . Additionally, the responded to by Staniec staff who commenter questioned how a responded that different studies and cumulative project list is documents are utilized in developed . information gathering for the Project and outlined the process of The commenter stated their determining thresholds . Staniec staff also provided an explanation of how concerns with how the Initial a cumulative project list is Study is written describing developed and what is taken into Housing Opportunity Site 10 and consideration for an analysis of the associated development cumulative impacts. As the agreement and requests that 11 1-10 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR additional information is comments provided does not incorporated . identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project , additional analysis is not required . Housing Opportunity Site 10, also referred to as the Old Ranch Country Club or the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project, identified in the Initial Study , is no longer defined as a Housing Opportunity Site . Instead, the Old Ranch Country Club is defined as a pipeline project. This proposed pipeline project is a component of a larger specific plan proposal being evaluated by the City in a standalone EIR. However, the 167 units proposed within the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project count towards the City's RHNA requirements . Therefore, the 167 proposed units from the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are evaluated at a programmatic level as a basis for implications associated with housing production only within this EIR. Susan Perrell (EQCB December The commenter questioned the This comment was provided during Board Member) 6 ,2023 process of a programmatic EIR the in -person public scoping and the level of analysis of each meeting . The comment was site that would occur, and the responded to by Stantec staff who process of subsequent provided an explanation of the environmental review of process, the level of analysis, and individually proposed how the comments received during developments and the process of the scoping period are incorporated . incorporating comments received As the comments provided does not during the scoping period . identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project, Commissioner Perrell questioned additional analysis is not required . what kind of recreational resources are going to be given An analysis of the Project's potential up and how the Project would impacts to recreational resources is mitigate the loss of those provided in Draft EIR Section 3 .14, resources . Recreation , and mitigation has been identified to reduce potential The additional comments impacts, where appropriate . provided by Commissioner Perrell during the in-person scoping meeting is the same as those described above in this table provided through a comment letter bv Susan Perrell. For a 11 1-11 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR summary of comments provided, see above . Carol Churchill December The commenter stated the tide's As outlined in the Initial Study, as 6,2023 movements can affect the water well as Draft EIR Section 3 .8, table resulting in contamination Hazards and Hazardous Materials moving inland and outland with and Section 6 .0, Effects Found Not the tides and therefore, the to be Significant, site specific environment study should evaluation of potential existing evaluate not just a specific site contamination and its potential but the water element and water effects are to be completed through tables and its effects on existing individual project specific contamination . environmental review at the time of individual development proposal and The commenter stated Housing would be required to prepare an Opportunity Site 10 has a Environmental Site Assessment. contract with the City with regard to the use of the property until Housing Opportunity Site 10, also 2029 and what becomes of the referred to as the Old Ranch existing golf course at the end of Country Club or the Old Ranch the contract and the potential Country Club Pipeline Project, legal implications and identified in the Initial Study, is no development restrictions . longer defined as a Housing Additionally, the commenter Opportunity Site . Instead, Old stated Housing Opportunity Site Ranch Country Club is defined as a 10 includes a golf course and the pipeline project. This proposed potential cumulative effects pipeline project is a component of a should be analyzed if the golf larger specific plan proposal being course is turned into housing . evaluated by the City in a standalone EIR. However, the 167 The commenter provided units proposed within the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project count information about a study that towards the City's RHNA looked at safety hazards and requirements . Therefore, the 167 noise hazards on a military base proposed units from the Old Ranch and stated these issues need to Country Club Pipeline Project are be addressed in the EIR. evaluated at a programmatic level as a basis for implications The commenter stated that when associated with housing production calculating the Quimby fee, a fair only within this EIR. market value of land within Seal Beach to ensure that the Quimby A discussion of safety and noise fee is not underestimated. hazards related to the nearby airports, including Los Alamitos JFTB can be found in Draft EIR Section 3 .8, Hazards, and Hazardous Materials and Section 3 .11, Noise . As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3 .14, Recreation, required Quimby fees would be calculated at the time of individual proposed developments 11 1-12 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR and would be based on the value of land at the time of calculation . Susan Barronbam December The commenter noted that they A discussion of potential flooding 6,2023 live in College Park East which impacts and impacts to the drainage currently has flooding and system can be found in Draft EIR drainage issues. Section 3 .9, Hydrology and Water Quality . Additionally, the commenter identified Housing Opportunity Housing Opportunity Site 10, also Site 10 and noted issues related referred to as the Old Ranch to hydrology, noise, and traffic. Country Club or the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project, The commenter asked a question identified in the Initial Study, is no longer defined as a Housing regarding the Old Ranch Country Opportunity Site . Instead, Old Club's individual project level EIR Ranch Country Club is defined as a analysis that is being prepared pipeline project. This proposed and how that would affect the pipeline project is a component of a decision making for the Housing larger specific plan proposal and is Element Update EIR. being evaluated by the City in a standalone EIR. However, the 167 units proposed within the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project count towards the City's RHNA requirements . Therefore, the 167 proposed units from the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are evaluated at a programmatic level as a basis for implications associated with housing production only within this EIR This comment was provided during the in-person public scoping meeting . The comment was responded to by Stantec staff who outlined the process for each EIRs and how the approval or disapproval of each document could affect each other. As the comments provided does not identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project, additional analysis is not required . 1.2.1 Environmental Issues Determined Not To Be Significant Pursuant to CEQA, the discussion of the potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the details of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (PRC 11 1-13 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Section 21100, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effects on the environment be limited to substantial or potentially substantial adverse changes in physical conditions that exist within the affected area, as defined in PRC Section 21060 .5 (Statutory definition of "environment"). Effects dismissed in an analysis as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the Draft EIR unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15143). Based on a review of the project information provided in the NOP (Appendix A), comments received as part of the public scoping process and application submittal (Appendix A), and additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of this Draft EIR, the following were identified as resources that would not experience any significant environmental impacts from the Project. Accordingly, these resources are not addressed further in this Draft EIR but are identified below. A brief explanation as to why impacts to each resource are not anticipated , as required by CEQA is provided in Section 6 .0, Effects Not Found to be Significant. • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Wildfire In addition, certain subjects within various environmental resource topics were determined not to be significant. Other potentially significant issues are analyzed within these environmental resource topics ; however, the following issues listed in Table 1.2-2 are not analyzed, but a brief explanation as to why impacts are less than significant as required by CEQA is provided in Section 6 .0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Table 1.2-2: Issues Determined Not to be Significant Issue Area Impact Question Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources , including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, Aesthetics and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Biological Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree Resources preservation policy or ordinance? Cultural Disturb any human remains , including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Resources Energy Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Geology and Soils • 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 . 11 1-14 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Issue Area Impact Question • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure , including liquefaction? • Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on strata or soil that is unstable , or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading , subsidence, liquefaction , or collapse? Be located on expansive soil , as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use , or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Hazards and Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials , substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Hazardous Materials 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? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Hydrology and Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area , including through the Water Quality alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would : • Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite ; Land Use and Physically divide an established community? Planning Population and Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of Housing replacement housing elsewhere? Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities , need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts , in order to Public Services maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public serv ices : • Schools • Other Public Facilities Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e .g ., sharp curves or Transportation dangerous intersection(s) or incompatible uses (e .g . farm equipment))? Result in inadequate emergency access? 11 1-15 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Issue Area Impact Question Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of Utilities and local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Service Systems Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR This Draft EIR is arranged into the following sections, which contain the contents of an EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15120 through 15132. Section ES: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary provides a summary of the Project and the project alternatives, including a summary of project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation for each environmental issue. Section 1.0: Introduction. The Introduction provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process and describes the purpose, scope, and components of this Draft EIR. Section 2.0: Project Description. The Project Description provides a detailed description of the Project, including the location and project characteristics . The intended uses of this Draft EIR, project background, project objectives, and required discretionary approvals are also addressed . Section 3.0: Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Analysis analyzes the environmental effects of the Project. Impacts are organized into major environmental topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, regulatory setting, methods , thresholds of significance, Housing Element Update policies, impact analysis, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topic areas that are addressed in Section 3.0 include the following : • Section 3.1: Aesthetics • Section 3.9 : Hydrology and Water • Section 3.2 : Air Quality Quality • Section 3.3: Biological Resources • Section 3.1 0 : Land Use and Planning • Section 3.4 : Cultural Resources • Section 3.11 : Noise • Section 3.5: Energy • Section 3.12 : Population and Housing • Section 3.6 : Geology and Soils • Section 3.13 : Public Services • Section 3. 7 : Greenhouse Gas • Section 3.14 : Recreation Emissions • Section 3.15 : Transportation • Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous • Section 3.16 : Tribal Cultural Resources Materials • Section 3.17 : Utilities and Service Systems 11 1-16 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Section 4.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes and compares the proposed alternatives to the Project. Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations. The Other CEQA Considerations section provides a summary of significant environmental effects, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth-inducing impacts. Section 6.0: Effects Found Not to Be Significant. This section provides a summary of project impacts that have been determined, through preparation of the NOP, to result in a less than significant impact or no impact. Section 7 .0: List of Preparers. The List of Preparers section provides a list of the various individuals who contributed to the preparation of this Draft EIR. Appendices. The appendices contain the NOP (including comments) and technical studies prepared to support the analyses and conclusions in this Draft EIR. 1.4 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, it does encourage, "wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues ... " (CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). The City distributed an NOP of a Draft EIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on December 15, 2023. The comments on the NOP were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIR. Appendix A contains the written comments received on the NOP. The City of Seal Beach has filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to begin the public review period (PRC Section 21161 ). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as to all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with PRC Section 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community- Development/Planninq-Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, which will begin on May 9, 2025, and end on June 23, 2025 . The City of Seal Beach encourages the electronic submission of comments. Send your comments to Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, via email at: planninq@sealbeachca.gov. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to: 11 Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 907 40 1-17 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to any public hearing on the Project at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision- makers for the Project. 1.4.1 Effectively Commenting on an EIR Readers are invited to review and comment on the adequacy and completeness of this Draft EIR in describing the potential impacts of the Project, the level of severity of each impact, the mitigation measures being proposed to reduce or avoid those impacts, and the project alternatives being considered . The most effective comments are those that focus on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analysis and that are supported by factual evidence. Comments that focus on whether the Project should be approved or denied are not comments on the adequacy of this Draft EIR. 1.4.2 Final EIR After the end of the review period, the City will review the comments received, prepare written responses to those comments, make any related revisions to the Draft EIR, and publish the Final EIR, which will include the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to comments and any revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be considered by the City's Planning Commission and City Council when taking action on the Project. If the Project is approved, CEQA requires the City to adopt findings describing how each of the significant impacts identified in the EIR is being mitigated . The findings are required to describe the reasons why significant unavoidable impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The findings will also describe the project alternatives analyzed in the EIR and explain whether or not any alternative or portion of an alternative has been adopted. Because the Project has significant and unavoidable impacts, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations describing the benefits of the Project that outweigh its environmental impacts. Finally, the City would adopt a MMRP that describes how it will ensure the mitigation measures being required for the Project would be carried out. 11 1-18 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW California state law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan for its physical development. A General Plan is a key tool that addresses a variety of subject areas and expresses the community's development goals related to the jurisdiction’s future land uses. In the City of Seal Beach (“City” or “Seal Beach”), the most recent General Plan was adopted in December 2003. The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated General Plan elements. California Government Code Section 65583 details the content and process by which a Housing Element is prepared. Among other requirements, Housing Elements must identify, analyze, and make adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of decent and suitable living as a major housing goal. Housing Element law—first enacted in 1969 and significantly strengthened since — mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of everyone in the community. The General Plan includes the Housing Element, which is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocated regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The sites inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects. Beyond the sites inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program in its Housing Element Update. As such, this Program EIR evaluates the following buildout areas within the City: Housing Opportunity Sites and ADUs, Main Street Program, and the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project. Housing Opportunity Sites and ADUs. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City. Housing Opportunity Sites are parcels of land that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation, see Section 2.6.2. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-2 code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Element Update identifies eight Housing Opportunity Sites totaling 83.45 acres, of which 35.05 acres are developable. Of these eight Housing Opportunity sites, two are underutilized sites that do not require rezoning, and six sites are proposed for zoning modifications. Out of the six Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for rezoning, five would be rezoned to Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD), a new zoning designation that is proposed to be implemented. The remaining site would be rezoned to the City’s existing Residential High Density (RHD)-33 zoning designation. According to the Housing Element Update, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites have an assumed buildout of 70 percent and a residential development potential of 1,165 dwelling units. An additional seven ADUs are projected to be constructed within the planning period and would be credited toward the RHNA. Therefore, the Housing Opportunity Sites and the ADUs would result in 1,172 dwelling units. Main Street Program. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a proposal of the Main Street Program which is analyzed in this EIR. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing 21-acre Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period. Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project. The RHNA projection period for 2021-2029 began on June 30, 2021, therefore housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA and are considered pipeline projects. The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project is a proposed 155-acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 dwelling units across four acres. The 167 dwelling units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 dwelling units are included within the City’s sites inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. The combination of the projected ADUs, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, and Housing Opportunity Sites would result in a total residential development potential of 1,339 dwelling units based on what was identified as the anticipated buildout within the City’s Housing Element Update. With a RHNA allocation of 1,243, there would be a surplus of 96 dwelling units or an eight percent buffer over the RHNA. However, the number of potential units within the Housing Element (1,339 units), is based on a 70 percent buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites (1,165 units). In order to evaluate all IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-3 potential environmental impacts under CEQA, it was conservatively assumed for the purposes of the analysis that the Housing Opportunity Sites would be developed at 100 percent. This assumption increases the total units across the eight Housing Opportunity Sites to 1,491 units (the two underutilized sites would provide 182 dwelling units, and the six rezoned sites would provide 1,309 dwelling units). Additionally, this EIR evaluates the potential impact from new housing units constructed as part of the Main Street Program. This EIR assumes a 70 percent buildout of the Main Street Program which would facilitate the development of 115 dwelling units. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. Therefore, the total residential buildout assumption within this EIR is 1,773 dwelling units, see Table 2.1-1. Table 2.1-1: Housing Element Update Buildout Assumptions Buildout Areas Housing Element Buildout Assumption (dwelling units) EIR Buildout Assumption (dwelling units) Land Area (acres) Developable Area (acres) Housing Opportunity Sites 1,165 1,491 83.45 35.05 ADUs 7 --* -- -- Main Street Program 2 115 21 21 Residential Component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project 167 167 155 4 Total Dwelling Units Evaluated in this EIR 1,773 259.45 60.05 * ADUs are not included in the EIR buildout assumptions because the ADUs would be dispersed throughout the City and are allowed by-right. It is noted that future General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 (Zoning Code) amendments may be required for the Housing Element Update, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. However, in accordance with state CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach’s Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023. The Housing Element Update was then updated again in March 2024 in response to comments received from HCD. The most up to date version of the Housing Element Update is from August 2024. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-4 is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The Housing Element Update identifies a sites inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites, ADUs, and pipeline projects throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The Housing Opportunity Sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. As identified in the Initial Study, the Housing Element Update originally included 13 Housing Opportunity Sites. However, in response to comments received from HCD since the preparation of the Initial Study, the number of Housing Opportunity Sites identified has been reduced to eight. Of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning. The City’s rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. This new zoning district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. In addition, this EIR analyzes potential impacts related to the Main Street Program component of the Housing Element Update. As identified in the Initial Study previously prepared for the Housing Element Update, Main Street was previously identified as one of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites originally included in the Housing Element Update. The Main Street Housing Opportunity Site was originally assumed to have a development capacity of 163 units. However, Main Street was removed from the list of Housing Opportunity Sites as a result of comments received from HCD. Though Main Street is no longer included as a Housing Opportunity Site, the City revised the Housing Element Update to include the Main Street Program to represent a good faith effort by the City to produce additional housing. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period, though the City is not relying on these units to meet the City’s RHNA requirement. Finally, this EIR also provides programmatic analysis of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. As identified in the Initial Study previously prepared for the Housing Element Update, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was previously identified as one of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites originally included in the Housing Element Update (referred to as Old Ranch Country Club in the Initial Study). The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was originally assumed to have a development capacity of 167 units. However, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was removed from the list of Housing Opportunity Sites as a result of comments received from HCD, and redefined as a pipeline project as the City has received a Specific Plan development application. Pipeline projects are housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-5 expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029). The impacts associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. However, since the 167 dwelling units that comprise the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan are included within the City’s sites inventory to meet its RHNA requirements, the impacts from these dwelling units are evaluated within this analysis. An Initial Study was prepared for the City and this EIR is being prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the City’s recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7, 2022, and updated in August 2023, March 2024, and August 2024 in response to HCD comments. It identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City’s strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for lower-income households and for special-needs populations (i.e., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to certify the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update would bring the Element into compliance with state legislation and the City’s current RHNA allocation. In March 2021, SCAG adopted its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cycle, SCAG received a need of 1,341,827 new dwelling units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2021 1). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law (City of Seal Beach 2024 2): • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends; • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals; • A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meet the City’s housing needs; and • A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, including goals policies and programs. 1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21 and modified on 7/1/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Accessed February 2025. 2 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Clean- compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-6 The Housing Element Update identifies the following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: • Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income-levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents; • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households; • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing; • Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and • Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The Housing Element proposes that of the 1,243 units, 167 can be produced through one pipeline project pending approval (ORCC Specific Plan Project) and 7 ADUs. The Housing Opportunity Sites are expected to produce 1,165 units; however, the EIR assumes 100 percent buildout and evaluates 1,491 units on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites. 2.3 PROJECT SETTING 2.3.1 Population The 2020 Census reported that the City’s population increased from 24,168 persons in 2010 to 25,242 persons in 2020 (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing for detailed information). The City’s 2020 population represented 0.8 percent of Orange County’s (County) 2020 population of 3,186,989 persons. As identified in the City’s Housing Element Update, the City’s population has remained relatively stable over the past decade and had an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent during the 20-year period between 2000 and 2020. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) identifies growth forecast projections for each county and city under jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted on September 3, 2020, included a demographics and growth forecast technical report that identifies the projected growth for each county and city under the jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s growth forecast identifies the anticipated population for Seal Beach by the year 2045 to be 25,400 residents (SCAG 2020 3). As a nearly built-out community with almost no 3 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Adopted on September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-7 vacant developable land remaining to accommodate new growth, the City is expected to experience a low percentage of annual growth. 2.3.2 Housing The housing stock in the City consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family units with one mobile home park. The City’s Housing Element Update identified that the most commonly occurring household size in the City is one person (45.1 percent) and the second-most occurring household is of two people (35.4 percent) (City of Seal Beach 2024 4). As of January 1, 2024, the City is estimated to have 14,678 total dwelling units with a vacancy rate of 8.9 percent (DOF 2024 5). Housing is discussed in more detail in Section 3.12, Population and Housing. 2.3.3 General Plan The City of Seal Beach General Plan was adopted in December 2003 and serves as the major framework for directing growth within the City. The General Plan presents a comprehensive plan to accommodate the City’s growing needs and includes objectives related to eight Elements: • Land Use • Circulation • Open Space/Recreation/Conservation • Safety • Housing (amended 2022) • Noise • Cultural Resources • Growth Management The General Plan reflects the broad-based attitudes of the community, consistent with environmental, economic, social, and legal constraints. The General Plan is a statement of City policy regarding the community’s future and serves as a guide for all planning and permit decisions. 2.3.4 Land Use Categories The Land Use Element of the General Plan identified land use designations to recognize the type and nature of development permitted within specified areas of a site. The City includes 17 land use designations under the land use categories of residential, commercial, industrial, public, quasi-industrial, and military. 4 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Clean- compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. 5 Department of Finance (DOF). 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties- and-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed September 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-8 Table 2.3-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Acres Percent of Total Area Residential Low 353.7 5.0 Medium 505.4 7.0 High 166.4 2.3 Commercial Professional Office 16.4 0.2 Service 49.3 0.7 General 93.4 1.3 Industrial Light 117.0 1.6 Oil Extraction 54.6 0.8 Open Space Open Space 42.7 2.0 Golf Course 156.8 2.2 Wetlands & Wildlife Refuge 1,020 14.3 Park 65.4 0.9 School 15.3 0.2 Community Facility 61.8 0.9 Miliary 4,336 60.7 Beach 80.3 1.1 Total 7,135 100 Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 2.3.5 Zoning Code The City’s Zoning Code is defined in Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 – Zoning. The Zoning Code defines the City’s allowed land uses and establishes development standards for each zone. The Zoning Code is adopted to regulate the use of real property, and the buildings, structures, and improvements located thereon, to implement the provisions of the General Plan and carry out its objectives. Development standards provide density, floor area, setbacks, height, development intensity, and other such standards that help maintain the City’s vision within the General Plan for a parcel. l IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-9 Table 2.3-2: City of Seal Beach Zoning Code Zoning Abbreviation Description Base Residential Zoning Districts Residential Low Density – 9 RLD-9 To allow single-unit neighborhoods at a base density of up to 9 dwelling units per net acre. Residential Low Density – 15 RLD-15 To allow single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density of up to 15 dwelling units per net acre. Residential Medium Density – 18 RMD-18 To allow duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. Residential High Density – 20 RHD-20 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. Residential High Density – 33 RHD-33 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 33 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. Residential High Density – 46 RHD-46 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density LC/RMD To allow limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. Main Street Specific Plan MSSP To allow visitor-serving and resident-serving office, retail, restaurant, and personal service uses with upper floors devoted to office uses along Main Street. Professional Office PO To allow office, medical and related uses that may also serve as a buffer area between residential areas and more intensive commercial areas. Service Commercial SC To allow neighborhood-serving commercial areas that provide retail, restaurant, and personal service uses. General Commercial GC To allow sub-regional and regional centers of commercial activity and may include both pedestrian- and auto-oriented development. Other typical uses are auto service stations, auto repair, and sales. Light Manufacturing LM To allow sites in a business park environment for moderate- to low- intensity commercial services and light manufacturing uses. Oil Extraction OE To allow for oil extraction and related production storage and processing, maintenance facilities, and related operational and maintenance facilities. Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS To allow appropriate public uses, including private utilities (electrical, gas, water, and telecommunications), schools (both private and public), and other city, county, state, or federal facilities. Recreation/Golf RG To allow golf courses and associated club houses, maintenance facilities, accessory concession sales, and related plant nurseries. I I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-10 Zoning Abbreviation Description Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts Military M Military Beach BEA Beach Open Space Natural OS-N To preserve publicly owned parklands, environmentally sensitive lands and habitats in their natural state. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that maintain the property in its natural state. Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR To provide appropriately located areas for recreation and recreational uses. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that are devoted to public recreation including parks, playgrounds, swimming centers, tennis and basketball courts, golf courses, community centers within the facilities, and accessory concession sales. Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations Residential Conservation Overlay RC-O Support the preservation of locally-significant residential structures within the city and the need to provide incentives for owners to continue to occupy and maintain locally-significant historic structures as "bed and breakfast" facilities within appropriate areas of the city. Planned Development Overlay PD Provide for detailed and substantial review of development that warrants special review and deviations from underlying development standards. This overlay district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches that will achieve superior design solutions to that which would be possible if the project were built in full compliance with the required standards of the base district, and will not cause a significant adverse impact on residences to the side, rear, or directly across a street with respect to solar access, privacy and compatibility. Commercial/Park C/P Seventy percent of any parcel within this zone shall be devoted to park uses with unrestricted access to the public. Coastal Zone CZ Area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act, which is all areas south of Westminster Avenue located within the City limits. Specific Plan Regulation SPR All property in the SPR Zone shall be used only for the purposes permitted by the general plan and the specific plan adopted for such property. Source: City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Title 11, 2024. 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION Seal Beach is located at the northwestern edge of County, California (Figure 2-1). It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, roughly 8 square miles of which is dedicated to the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. l l IJ S nt G l e nda l e Pa sa den a eve rly Hill s L os Ang el es East L os ~ 10 S.r1ta ,~c,,. Ange l es M onie Ir, \'Wt 42 ln g l wood e o ncl o B e ch ncho P l os To rranc Ve rd es 1473 ft Down y Sa.,,()· r•ooF 11,y L ong B e ch A r cl i le nd or qi 210 B l d,•1 in P .rk --West Covina E l M o n t e 0l N o rwa l k Ce rrit os W l.Jnccin 'Po An he im ,S O rong e S ant An a Fount in V ll ey Hunti ngt o n Beach ,, "Os I t in e Cost a M esa Ne• po rt Be ch foothi ll Fwy Ont a ri Po m o n a Cl1in o Chin o Hills "" "" <11 •! Miss i on V iej o L un Nigue l 6 1 L un S n C le me nt e () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Sites ■ Main Street Program Residential Component of the ■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project ■ Seal Beach City Limits N @ Miles (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:500,000 Notes 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEB CO, Garmin, NGS Project Location City of Seal Beach , California Prepared by KDLP on 2025-03-10 IR by JW on 2025 -03 -10 Client/Project 204266500 City of Seal Beach Ho using El ement and Zoning Code Updates Project Figure No. 2-1 Title Regional Location Di sc laimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as ci ted in the Notes section. Staniec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resu lt. Staniec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-12 2.5 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT COMPONENTS The Project evaluated within this EIR includes the Housing Element Update and the potential environmental impacts associated with the rezoning and buildout of eight Housing Opportunity sites and the Main Street Program (Figure 2-2). While the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is included within the RHNA totals, only the dwelling units are evaluated at a programmatic level within this EIR and therefore, the ORCC Specific Plan Project and its other components which include a medical office facility, overnight accommodation, bar/lounge and specialty restaurant, and parking structure are not considered as portions of the Project. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. The entirety of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and its resulting implications and impacts are being analyzed by the City in a standalone EIR. 2.5.1 Housing Element Update The City of Seal Beach Housing Element is a required General Plan element. In compliance with California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element identifies, analyzes, and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all the City’s economic segments. California Government Code Section 65580–65589.8 require that jurisdictions evaluate their Housing Elements every eight years. The current statutory update in the SCAG region covers the eight-year 6th Cycle Housing Element (October 2021 to October 2029). The City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element is proposed to ensure consistency with current state housing laws and cover the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029). The Housing Element Update represents a comprehensive update to the City’s last adopted Housing Element (i.e., the 5th Cycle). The Housing Element Update will include revised goals and policies, and new, modified, and continuing implementation programs. The Housing Element will provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all within the City. The Housing Element will be prepared to ensure the City establishes policies, procedures, and incentives in its land use planning and development activities that result in maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately accommodate households currently living and expected to live in the City. The Housing Element will institute policies intended to guide City decision-making and establish an Implementation Program to achieve housing goals through the year 2029. The Housing Element will be comprised of the following components: Section 1: Introduction This section of the Housing Element will provide background information and a baseline for the Housing Element’s primary sections. It will discuss the community context, describe the purpose of the Housing Element, a description of the organization of the Housing Element and the Housing Element’s role in relation to the General Plan, and summarize applicable state housing law. This section will summarize the community engagement process and outline the data sources and methods used. IJ VA Long Be c h He lth c are . st e m l.:im1tos Bay dro Cahro rn1a State Un1 .e r s1ty Lo ng Be c h / al B c h ta lill'l I I .... e C ' um Gro,-e Pill!,; 58 ft "'e <2 (j)'I. LL Kempto n Dr <i,, ,, ~?. "'Vt>! ~ ,. <?. c,.t. t;r, <?. "C ~o .2: CD ~'l>' .;; ..., '(,<:' Iv m O ld Ranc h Co untry C lub CA-22~W .. _-_-_-_-_ -_ -_ =======11/1/es tinm Nav;:il W Staton Sea l Bea c h () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Sites ■ Main Street Program Residential Component of the ■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project Site # Housing Site 1780 Pacific Coast 2 Leisure World 3 1011 Seal Beach Blvd /Ac curate Storag e 4 Shops at Rossmoor 5 Old Ran ch Town Center 6 Seal Be ach Pl aza 7 Seal Beac h Center 8 99 Marina Drive N @ 0 .25 0.5 ""'""',,_ __ _.""'""'""'""'"' Mi les (At origi nal document size of 8.5x11) 1:31,680 Notes 1. Coordi nate System : WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxi liary Sphere 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background : World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE , Garm in, IN CR EMEN T P, USGS, METI /NASA, EPA, USDA World Ocea n Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, Natura lVue World Ocea n Reference: Esri, GEB CO, Garm in, NGS Project Location City of Seal Beach , California Prepared by KDLP on 2025-03-10 IR by JW on 2025 -03 -10 Client/Project 204266500 City of Seal Beach Housing El ement and Zoning Code Updates Project Figure No. 2-2 Title Housing Opportunity Sites Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as ci ted in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resu lt. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts fu ll responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-14 Section 2: Projected Housing Need This section provides a summary of the RHNA and outlines the RHNA allocation and housing needs for the City. Section 3: Housing Resources This section outlines the analysis of land resources available as potential development sites. Additionally, this section discussed opportunities for energy conservation and programs included in the Housing Element that would implement energy conservation strategies. Section 4: Goals, Policies, and Programs This section will contain the requisite Housing Element goals, policies, and programs that the City intends to implement to address the City’s housing-related needs. The overarching intent of the Housing Element is to create a policy structure that allows for facilitation of the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet existing and future needs of residents and increased capacity in housing options that are available to people within the lower income categories. Appendices The following appendices contain information which further details and supports the development of the Housing Element: • Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment • Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology • Appendix C: Housing Constraints • Appendix D: Existing Programs Review • Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries • Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment • Appendix G: Housing Resources Housing Element Implementation As noted above, various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 Amendments may be required for the Housing Element Update, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. However, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-15 2.5.2 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation Program 1b of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. As described, in order to implement housing development at some of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income-levels, the City must establish a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre to better facilitate development of housing affordable to lower income levels in accordance with HCD policy. Other changes to zoning designations include rezoning a former oil extraction property to residential use under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) to the City’s existing RHD-33 zoning district. The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites to align with the densities identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential list (Table 2.6-5, below). Housing Element Update Program 1b The proposed new zoning designation of MC/RHD will consider how to accommodate state requirements and policies to allow for: a minimum residential density of 40 units per acre and maximum residential density of 46 units per acre on larger, developed sites large enough size to permit: at least 16 units; exclusively residential uses; at least 50 percent of the building floor area of a mixed-use development to be dedicated to residential uses; and housing by-right with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households. The definitions of “persons and families of low- and moderate-income,” “lower- income households,” and “very low-income households” as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50150 shall apply. The City shall engage with affected property owners, the Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the zoning process to ensure the development standards can result in the development of the maximum number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. 2.5.3 Main Street Program Program 1r of the Housing Element Update commits to modifying the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The amendments made to facilitate housing at select properties in the Main Street Specific Plan are not accounted for in the City’s Housing Opportunity Sites. The Main Street Program’s proposed amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan would allow for and permit the development of residential units to be constructed at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-16 2.6 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 dwelling unit growth needs among the 197 jurisdictions in the region, including cities and counties, through the adopted its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City’s sites inventory must accommodate for in its Housing Element Update, through its General Plan and Zoning. The City’s RHNA allocation is 1,243 new dwelling units, which is distributed among four income categories, consisting of 258 very low-, 201 low-, 239 moderate-, and 545 above moderate-income units (SCAG 2021 6). 2.6.1 Existing Site Conditions The City has identified an inventory of sites across all areas of the city to implement programs to meet its RHNA. The City’s current base zoning, including the General Plan land use designation implemented by zoning designation, are provided in Table 2.6-1, below. Table 2.6-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Base Residential Zoning Districts Residential Low Density – 9a RLD-9 Residential Low Density Residential Low Density – 15a RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density – 18b RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residential High Density – 20c RHD-20 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 33c RHD-33 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 46c RHD-46 Residential High Density Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Densityd LC/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office Service Commercial SC Service Commercial General Commercial GC General Commercial Light Manufacturing LM Light Manufacturing Oil Extraction OE Oil Extraction Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS Community Facility and School Recreation/Golf RG Open Space – Golf Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts 6 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21 and modified on 7/1/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Accessed February 2025. I I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-17 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Military M Military Beach BEA Beach Open Space Natural OS-N Open Space Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR Park Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations Residential Conservation Overlay RC-O All Planned Unit Development Overlay PUD/PD All Commercial/Park C/P All Coastal Zone CZ All Specific Plan Regulation SPR All Source: City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11.1.05.030, 2021. Notes: a Typical single-unit, and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per net acre respectively. b Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. c Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. d Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. 2.6.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories An important component of the City’s Housing Element Update is the identification of sites for future housing development, including an evaluation of the adequacy of those sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs. Seal Beach is nearly built out with almost no vacant developable land remaining. Therefore, the sites inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites. The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new dwelling units at low- , moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are seven ADUs that are projected to be developed, as well 167 dwelling units that are proposed as part of the Old Ranch Country Club Project, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement. Therefore, with the inclusion of ADU projections and entitled projects, the City has a remaining RHNA allocation of 1,069 that would be required to be satisfied by the other identified Housing Opportunity Sites. The first iteration of the Housing Element Update included a total of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites. Initially, all parcels in the city were evaluated through a process of elimination based on criteria set by HCD. Where housing units could not be located at sites under present zoning, the City examined nonresidential areas where zoning amendments could facilitate residential development. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. The sites were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-18 had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Following comments received from HCD regarding the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the prior Initial Study and draft Housing Element Update, the sites were reevaluated and several of the originally previously Housing Opportunity Sites are no longer to be included in the plan. The number of identified Housing Opportunity Sites was reduced to eight sites. Housing Opportunity Sites 3 (ADUs), and 11 through 13 identified in the Initial Study were removed and are no longer proposed as Housing Opportunity Sites in response to HCD comments. These sites are no longer proposed as Housing Opportunity Sites but are included as part of the Housing Element Update. Site 10 is now categorized as a pipeline site, not a Housing Opportunity Site, but the 167 units proposed are analyzed in this Program EIR. See Table 2.6-2 below for a list of the Housing Opportunity Sites currently and previously proposed and the corresponding identifying number for the sites. Table 2.6-2: Housing Opportunity Sites Numbering Site Name Housing Element Update Redline (August 2023) Initial Study Site No. (November 2023) EIR Site No. (August 2024) 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 1 1 1 Leisure World 2 2 2 Accessory Dwelling Units* 3 3 -- Accurate Storage 4 4 3 The Shops at Rossmoor 5 5 4 Old Ranch Town Center 6 6 5 Seal Beach Plaza 7 7 6 Seal Beach Center 8 8 7 99 Marina Drive 9 9 8 Old Ranch Country Club 10 10 (Recategorized to Pipeline Site) Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd. 11 11 Converted to a Program, not analyzed in this EIR Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) 12 12 Converted to a Program, not analyzed in this EIR Main Street* 13 13 Converted to a Program, and analyzed in this EIR The inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the city. Potential underutilized sites and ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods, thereby expanding affordable housing choices. The Housing Opportunity Sites are not concentrated in low-resource areas. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-19 Underutilized Sites The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of two underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development, as summarized in Table 2.6-3. Because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations, proposed rezone sites have been identified, as shown in Table 2.6-4, below. Table 2.6-3: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) Proposed Rezone Sites To accommodate the balance of the RHNA allocation and provide the required unit buffer, the City conducted an evaluation of potential properties where land use regulations could be amended to create additional opportunities for housing or mixed-use development, and six sites have been identified for further evaluation to determine the most appropriate parcels to be rezoned. Due to the lack of vacant and underutilized sites in the city, the sites were identified and analyzed in light of the development standards for their proposed zoning designation. The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the sites inventory and to estimate the number of additional units that are likely to be developed. Bearing in mind that most of the developable land within the city consists of established residential uses, most of these areas were eliminated from consideration, as land assembly in a single- family neighborhood was considered infeasible. To ensure sites selected for the sites inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility was determined by a number of different variables, including the improvement-to-land value ratio (I/L ratio), existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses. As the I/L ratio serves as an indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment, according to the Housing Element Update, a I/L ratio or less than 1.0 for commercial and multi-family residential properties indicates that the parcels are underutilized, with a higher potential for residential infill redevelopment. Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) General Plan/ Zoning Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Density (du/ac*) Min. Allowed Max. Allowed 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 199-061-01 Retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop Commercial Limited; LC/RMD 0.25 0.25 21.8 2 Leisure World 095-691-04 Recreational vehicle storage High Density Residential; RHD-PD 5.5 5.5 32.2 * Du/ac – dwelling units per acre IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-20 Table 2.6-4: Proposed Rezone Sites Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 3 Accurate Storage 095-791-18 Vehicle and boat storage 4.4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 086-492-51 Retail, office, fast food, grocery and pharmacy 27 12 GC MC/RHD 5 Old Ranch Town Center 130-861- 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 18, -19, - 20, -21, - 22, -23, - 24, -25, - 26, -27 Existing commercial center with bank, surface parking, restaurants, department stores, retail, services, Ralph’s supermarket, and CVS Pharmacy 26 8.3 GC MC/RHD 6 Seal Beach Plaza 095-641- 44, -49, - 55, -56, -57 Existing commercial center with Chase Bank, retail, market, drive through restaurant, and medical and professional offices 7 1.5 SC MC/RHD 7 Seal Beach Center 043-260- 02, -05 Existing commercial center with CVS Pharmacy, retail, services, restaurant, and market 9 2.7 SC MC/RHD 8 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil separation facility with abandoned handball court 4.3 3 OE RHD-33 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-21 Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, March 2024. Notes:* The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD). The new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. GC = Commercial General OE = Oil Extraction SC = Service Commercial MC/RHD = Mixed Commercial/Residential High Although ORCC Specific Plan Project is not identified as a Housing Opportunity Site, the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require a rezone from RG to a Specific Plan zone to accommodate the 167 dwelling units. The environmental impacts from the ORCC Specific Plan Project and rezoning of this property are evaluated in a separate environmental analysis. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. Density and Realistic Capacity Assumptions The City’s sites inventory relies primarily on the rezoning of existing commercial properties to a new zone that allows for high density residential, mixed-use developments under Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone). This new MC/RHD zone will allow residential development with a maximum density of up to 46 dwelling units per acre and will require a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Sites in the City’s sites inventory that are being rezoned MC/RHD are conservatively assumed to develop at a capacity of 80 percent of maximum density (80 percent of 46 dwelling units per acre, or almost 37 dwelling units per acre), to account for the possibility of 100 percent commercial projects and inefficacies that can arise from parcel shape and orientation during the development process. In terms of land use controls, however, through Program 1b the City will create development standards in the MC/RHD zone that are conducive to achieving the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre. The City’s conservative realistic capacity assumption for sites to be rezoned MC/RHD (80 percent of the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre) is lower than the minimum density of 40 dwelling units. However, as the minimum density standard of 40 dwelling units per acre is a component of the proposed MC/RHD zoning district, the City anticipates additional units than those projected in its sites inventory may be constructed. The City considers this conservative approach to give it an additional built-in “buffer” for the purposes of meeting its RHNA obligations during the 6th cycle and is committed to adopting minimum and maximum densities as described in this Housing Element. One other site, Housing Opportunity Site 8, located at 99 Marina Drive, will be rezoned under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) to the City’s existing High Density Residential-33 zoning district, which allows a maximum density of 33 dwelling units I I I I I I I I I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-22 per acre. The realistic capacity assumed at Housing Opportunity Site 8 was discounted to 70 percent of maximum density (i.e., 70 percent of 33 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 23 dwelling units per acre) to account for land use controls, although again, the City anticipates that the maximum allowable density of 33 dwelling units per acre could be achieved, and therefore 100 percent of maximum density was analyzed in this EIR. Lastly, the City’s sites inventory includes two sites that do not require rezoning for the production of housing, 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (Housing Opportunity Site 1) and the Leisure World RV parking lot (Housing Opportunity Site 2), which are also projected to accommodate an assumed capacity of 70 percent of maximum density to account for land use controls. Housing Opportunity Site 1 is zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which allows a maximum density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 70 percent of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 15.26 dwelling units per acre), and Housing Opportunity Site 2 is zoned Residential High Density/Planned Development and has a maximum density of 32.2 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 70 percent of 32.2 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 22.54 dwelling units per acre). 2.6.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, with an explanation of the methodology for the sites that are currently developed with various uses. With respect to existing utility infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, drainage systems, and dry utilities, there are no known limitations that would preclude the potential development and increased intensification of uses at each of the Housing Opportunity Sites. A description of the Housing Opportunity Sites is provided below, as taken from the March 2024 Housing Element Update (City of Seal Beach 2024 7). Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning) Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; Pacific Coast Highway), at the eastern corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west are single family residential uses. (Figure 2-3) Size: 0.25 acre Current Use: retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop. Current Zoning: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. Due to the age and marginal condition of the structure, taken in combination with the value of the land, this site is an excellent and likely candidate for redevelopment with a new 7 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Clean- compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-23 residential or mixed-use project. It is immediately adjacent to housing, with excellent access to goods and services. Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 21.8 units/acre. The site can reasonably accommodate ground floor commercial use and parking with four second-story housing units. Because of its maximum allowable density, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income sites inventory, as shown in Table 2.6-5 below. Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning) Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard, Interstate (I)-405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about 0.33 miles from the southwestern corner of the community. (Figure 2-4) Size: 5.5 acres Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage Current Zoning: Residential High Density–Planned Development (RHD-PD) Reason For Selection: This is an underutilized site in a community that while not income-restricted, offers very affordable living options, with units selling far below the cost of condominiums elsewhere in the region. For example, a one-bedroom unit may be found for under $300,000 while elsewhere pricing starts in the $500,000 range. More than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consists of low- to moderate-income households. Additionally, the community is already developed to higher densities, with a few buildings at three-stories with parking underneath. Additional units could integrate well into the community and could spread ongoing maintenance and operational costs among a greater number of owners, helping to keep those costs in an affordable range. Furthermore, such development has precedent. The series of three-story buildings earlier referenced, known as Mutual 17, were built in the 1980s, well after the rest of Leisure World was developed, and include 126 2-bedroom, 2-bath condominiums on a little less than five acres. As only one percent of the site is proposed for redevelopment, and adequately sized common areas are present, the existing uses will not impede the anticipated amount of residential development. A development proposal at this site can be approved administratively. No additional zoning revisions are needed. Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 125 moderate-income units can be accommodated on approximately 5.5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage at a density of 32.2 units to an acre. New three-story buildings can accommodate parking on the ground level with units above. IJ () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site N @ NotH 125 250 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:3,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • v1:e.:tminster • • 'ti A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-3 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 1 - 1780 Pacific Coast 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site N @ NotH 200 400 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,'300 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • �!'ikt:tminster • ·,. A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-4 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic f01mat, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-26 Site 3 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required) Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. (Figure 2-5) Size: 4.4 acres (Developable acres: 1.8 acres) Current Use: Self storage facility Current Zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20) Reason For Selection: This site was previously selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking, location close to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has good access to employment and transit routes. Due to the high land value and relatively low utilization, there is significant financial incentive for residential development on this property. Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to a maximum density of 46 units per acre that will enhance the financial viability of adding residences to the site. Development of 1.8 acres could yield 66 above-moderate units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the need to design around existing buildings, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than 2 acres, Table 2.6-5 shows a conservative estimate of only 10 percent at lower-income and 10 percent at moderate income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre. Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. (Figure 2-6) Size: 27 acres (Developable acres: 12 acres) Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington Current Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Reason For Selection: This site was selected due to an abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-27 generally successful retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use. Assumed Development Capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that approximately 12 acres of surface parking could be developed with housing, at a proposed 46 units per acre, resulting in 441 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, Table 2.6-5 projects 276 units at lower-income, 14 units at moderate-income, and 151 units at above-moderate-income. Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. (Figure 2-7) Size: 26 acres (Developable acres: 8.3 acres) Current Use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket. Current Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Reason For Selection: Similar to the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town Center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with on-site residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development. Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed approximately 8.3 acres of the surface parking lot of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses, creating a mixed-use environment at 46 units per acre, for a total of 306 units. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, as well as density over 30 dwelling units per acre, Table 2.6-5 projects 258 units at lower-income and 48 at moderate-income. Due to its proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, all residential units would be conditioned to meet interior noise level standards of 45 decibels, however, this is not an obstacle to development as this is also the standard in the California Building Code. Housing currently exists to the north and northeast of the site, also adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base. IJ () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site N @ NotH 125 250 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:3,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Client/Project City of Seal Beach • v1:e.:tminster • ·,. A Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 204266500 Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-5 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 3 - Accurate Storage Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic f01mat, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data. () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site Residential Component of the■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project N @ NotH 250 500 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:tl,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS A ch ·,. P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-6 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. ~ ¼'e minster • () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site Residential Component of the■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project N @ NotH 250 500 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:tl,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS A ch ·,. P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-7 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 5 - Old Ranch Town Center 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he No�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data. l!!!!!!!!lii;;;;;-i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F••t ~ \.ll.1e t trninst:e r • CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-31 Site 6 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. (Figure 2-8) Size: 7 acres (Developable acres: 1.5 acres) Current Use: Retail and office/service uses. Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Selection: This site has a low improvement value to land value ratio at 0.72 and has experienced some large tenant turnover in the past, which could indicate a need to reposition the site for long-term success in the future. Similar to other retail plazas, it is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers excellent access to goods and services, and augmenting the site with housing would benefit the on-site retailers. The adjacent Leisure World utilizes higher densities, and the Naval Weapons Station is immediately east, and is not a conflicting use. Assumed Development Capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project. Assuming that residential uses are developed on 1.5 acres of surface parking at the site at a base density of 46 du/acre, 55 moderate-income units could be accommodated following adoption of a new mixed-use zoning district. Site 7 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across the Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street, the commercial core of the Old Town and Marina Hill areas. (Figure 2-9) Size: 9 acres (Developable acres: 2.7 acres) Current Use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces. Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Selection: This site has an improvement value to land value ratio of 0.72, indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides excellent walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. Moreover, the property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed use as a future possibility to increase site utility. Assumed Development Capacity: With a mixed-use zoning allowing up to 46 units per acre, and 2.7 acres of surface parking, the capacity would be 99 above-moderate units without using a density bonus. IJ () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site N @ NotH 200 400 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,'300 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • v1:mminster • ·,. A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-8 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 6 - Seal Beach Plaza 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site■ Main Street Program N @ NotH 125 250 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:3,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • v1:e.:tminster • . ,,. A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-9 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 7 - Seal Beach Center 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-34 Site 8 – 99 Marina (Rezoning Required) Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection. (Figure 2-10) Size: 4.3 acres (Developable acres: 3 acres) Current Use: Vacant. At some point, a handball court was constructed on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court primarily for safety reasons as the court is located adjacent to a public park. Current Zoning: Oil Extraction (OE) Reason For Selection: Previously a site that supported oil extraction in the area, the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquiries received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense and is generally expected by the community. Assumed Development Capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the 30- du/ac default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production expected at the site is 69 units, all of which are assumed to be above moderate, to be extremely conservative. 2.6.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential As shown in Table 2.6-5 below, redevelopment of underutilized sites could result in a total of approximately 129 new dwelling units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,036 new dwelling units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, in combination with the ADU projections and the pipeline project at Old Ranch Country Club, the City would be able to provide 1,339 additional dwelling units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new dwelling units) and a buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The residential site development potential is shown in Table 2.6-5. IJ () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site N @ NotH 125 250 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:3,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • v1:e.:tminster • . ,. A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-10 Tille Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-36 Table 2.6-5: Housing Element Update Residential Development Potential Assumption Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Assumed Density (du/ac) Lower- Income Dwelling Units Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Above Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Total Units Underutilized Sites 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 0.25 15.26 (70 percent of max density) -- 4 -- 4 2 Leisure World 5.5 22.54 (70 percent of max density) -- 125 -- 125 Total Units from Underutilized Sites -- -- 129 -- 129 Rezoned Sites 3 Accurate Storage 1.8 36.8 (80 percent of max density) -- -- 66 66 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 12 36.8 (80 percent of max density) 276 14 151 441 5 Old Ranch Town Center 8.3 36.8 (80 percent of max density) 258 48 -- 306 6 Seal Beach Plaza 1.5 36.8 (80 percent of max density) 55 55 7 Seal Beach Center 2.7 36.8 (80 percent of max density) -- -- 99 99 8 99 Marina Drive 3 33 (70 percent of max density) -- -- 69 69 Total Units from Proposed Rezoning -- 534 117 385 1,036 Total Units including Underutilized Sites and Rezone 35.05 534 246 385 1,165 Projected ADUs 5 2 -- 7 Pipeline Projects (Old Ranch Country Club) -- -- 167 167 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-37 Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Assumed Density (du/ac) Lower- Income Dwelling Units Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Above Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Total Units Total Units including Underutilized Sites, Rezone Sites, Projected ADUs, and Approved/Entitled Projects 539 248 552 1,339 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, March 2024. Potential units based on estimated development area. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. In accordance with the “No Net Loss” provisions of SB 166, Housing Opportunity Sites inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update includes sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. 2.6.5 Other Sites The other sites included within the RHNA allocation are the ORCC Pipeline Project and the Main Street Program. As noted in Section 2.5.3, the Housing Element Update includes the Main Street Program which would modify the Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed above the ground floor for buildings located within the Main Street Specific Plan area (Figure 2-11). The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is identified by the Housing Element Update as a pipeline project. The 167 dwelling units that are proposed as part of the ORCC Specific Plan Project can be counted toward the City’s overall RHNA requirement. Therefore, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is being evaluated programmatically within this EIR. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. IJ () Stantec ■ Housing Opportunity Site■ Main Street Program N @ NotH 250 500 (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:tl,000 1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary Spher@ 2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024. 3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ch • v1:e.:tminster • A P(OJ«tLoear..on City of Seal Beach, California Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10 1R by JW on 2025-03.t0 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project hgu�No. 2-11 Tille Main Street Program 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. !!!!!!!!!lii;;;;;iil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FHt CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-39 2.7 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS 2.7.1 Maximum Buildout Scenario Though the Housing Element provides conservative assumptions of the Housing Opportunity Sites’ development potential, for the purposes of this EIR, the EIR analyzes full potential scenario buildout conditions to ensure that if the Housing Opportunity Sites were developed at 100 percent capacity of the allowed maximum density, the potential environmental effects resulting from 100 percent buildout are analyzed and if applicable, mitigated, in the EIR document. If the eight Housing Opportunity Sites were built out at the maximum density allowed, the underutilized sites could result in a total of approximately 182 new dwelling units, and rezoned parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,309 new dwelling units. Additionally, though the Initial Study assumed that buildout for the Main Street Specific Plan area would allow for development of up to 163 new dwelling units, it is unlikely that 100 percent buildout within the Main Street Specific Plan area would occur and therefore, for the purposes of this EIR, the analysis contained herein assumed the development for the Main Street Specific Plan area as a result of the Main Street Program at 70 percent of maximum buildout resulting in the potential for 115 new dwelling units to be developed within the Main Street Specific Plan area. Finally, the analysis within this EIR assumes buildout of 100 percent of the proposed dwelling units at the ORCC Specific Plan Project site, totaling approximately 167 units. Therefore, the analysis contained herein assumed buildout under the proposed project to result in the potential for 1,773 new dwelling units (1,491 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, 115 dwelling units from the Main Street Program, and 167 from ORCC Specific Plan Project) to be developed within the City. Therefore, this EIR analyzes the potential maximum buildout conditions for the Housing Opportunity Sites and 70 percent of maximum buildout for the Main Street Specific Plan area that could result from implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update resulting in buildout of a total of 1,606 new dwelling units. The potential impacts resulting from the 167 dwelling units from the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is evaluated at a programmatic level within this EIR but is discussed separately from the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program in the analysis. See Table 2.7-1 below for a breakdown of the maximum buildout conditions for each of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and potential buildout for the Main Street Program at 70 percent of the maximum allowable buildout. Table 2.7-1: Buildout Conditions Utilized in CEQA Analysis Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density (du/ac) Total Units Underutilized Sites 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 0.25 21.8 5 2 Leisure World 5.5 32.2 177 Total Units from Underutilized Sites 182 Rezoned Sites 3 Accurate Storage 1.8 46 83 I 1 l I l IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-40 Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density (du/ac) Total Units 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 12 46 552 5 Old Ranch Town Center 8.3 46 382 6 Seal Beach Plaza 1.5 46 69 7 Seal Beach Center 2.7 46 124 8 99 Marina Drive 3 33 99 Total Units from Proposed Rezoning 1,309 Total Units including Underutilized Sites and Rezone 35.05 -- 1,491 Other Sites Main Street Program* 9.2 -- 115 Old Ranch Country Club 4.0 - 167 Total Units under Buildout 49.25 1,773 * The Housing Element Update assumes under the Main Street Program, two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period. However, based on a 70 percent buildout scenario of the 163 total dwelling units identified in the Initial Study for the Main Street Specific Plan area, 115 dwelling units is the assumed buildout condition under the Main Street Program for the purposes of CEQA. 2.7.2 Buildout Projections for Future Site Development A “project” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) “means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment” or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The Project is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites for future development to meet the City’s allocation of 1,243 dwelling units in the 6th Cycle RHNA; it does not propose any site development on a Housing Opportunity Sites. Future development could occur on these Housing Opportunity Sites, if ultimately included within the Housing Element, as local conditions dictate with timing at the discretion of each individual property owner. The Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update. Therefore, this EIR evaluates implementation of the Housing Element Update at the maximum buildout potential scenario and the potential environmental impacts that would result, including establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. Future developments are evaluated in this EIR at a programmatic level based on information available to the City where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. Additional project-level analysis of the potential impacts resulting from future developments discussed within the Housing Element Update would be speculative at this time. Therefore, a programmatic level analysis is appropriate. Future Development Constraints Future developments facilitated by the Housing Element could be constrained by market conditions or various environmental conditions or impacts. Market constraints on potential future developments are I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-41 created by environmental and regulatory frameworks that reduce the potential profitability of housing development. Environmental constraints on potential future developments are created by the time, effort, and costs associated with mitigating environmental impacts. Where environmental impacts are significant and unavoidable, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council would be asked to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Housing Element Update against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Housing Element Update. It is noted, as discussed above, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. For example, a Housing Opportunity Site may require additional environmental documentation and analysis in the event that the housing types proposed on the site change. Future Development Future projects proposed under the Housing Element would be required to adhere, as applicable, to CEQA mitigation measures identified in this EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the site to develop consistent with the Housing Element Update’s purpose and to avoid or lessen any potentially significant environmental impacts. Future housing projects may tier from this EIR or a finding may be made that sufficient environmental clearance occurred with this EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15162 and 15168). This EIR comprehensively considers a series of related projects with the intent to streamline subsequent review of future development projects consistent with the Housing Element’s intent. Future developments facilitated by the Housing Element Update programs would be subject to subsequent environmental and other discretionary review and permitting. Specifically, design review and subsequent discretionary review would be required for most subdivision map actions. Subsequent discretionary actions must be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental documentation needs to be prepared. Future development projects on the Housing Opportunity Sites would be required to go through the City’s established entitlement process. 2.8 PROJECT OBJECTIVES In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the following primary objectives support the project’s purpose, assist the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, and ultimately aid decision-makers in preparing findings and overriding considerations, if necessary. • Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. • Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. • Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description 2-42 • General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. • Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. • Affirmatively further fair housing. 2.9 INTENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EIR 2.9.1 List of Permits and Other Approvals The proposed Project evaluated in this EIR is comprised of implementation of the Housing Element Update and establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Project does not propose any site development on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Future development would occur on the Housing Opportunity Sites, if ultimately included within the Housing Element, and as market conditions allow at the discretion of the individual property owners. The anticipated permits, approvals and consultation required for the Project include: • Certification of CEQA document • Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable) • Change of Zone • Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment In addition to the amendments included as part of the Project, approval of various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 amendments may be required for the Housing Opportunity Sites ultimately included in the Housing Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. 2.9.2 List of Agencies It is anticipated that approval of the Housing Element Update from the following agencies will be required: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission, City of Seal Beach City Council, and HCD. Likewise, the City of Seal Beach City Council would certify and adopt this Housing Element Update EIR. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following sections evaluate the potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project, including implementation of the Housing Element Update at the maximum buildout potential scenario and the potential environmental impacts that would result, including establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, establishment of the Main Street Program, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. Implementation of the Housing Element Update is anticipated to occur over the next eight years, which constitutes the City’s planning period from 2021 to 2029 to meet the state’s RHNA allocation. Potential impacts are assessed against the existing conditions, long-term implementation horizon year of 2030, criteria for determining the significance of potential environmental impacts, analyses of the type and magnitude of environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. The Housing Opportunity Sites were evaluated in this EIR at a programmatic level based on information available to the City of Seal Beach where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. While the legally required contents of a programmatic-level-based analysis are the same as those of a project-specific analysis, a programmatic level analysis is typically more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than project-specific analysis. As provided in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a programmatic level analysis may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a programmatic level analysis provides the City (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare programmatic level analysis for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Further (project-level) analysis was not conducted because the City has not received development proposals for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area analyzed in this EIR and therefore had no further information on which to base an analysis; any such analysis would be too speculative. Similarly, the analysis related to the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is provided to be informational as the project-specific impacts related to development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being analyzed in detail and evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-2 Environmental Resource Topics The environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures related to each environmental resource area are described in the following sections: • Section 3.1: Aesthetics • Section 3.2: Air Quality • Section 3.3: Biological Resources • Section 3.4: Cultural Resources • Section 3.5: Energy • Section 3.6: Geology and Soils • Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality • Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning • Section 3.11: Noise • Section 3.12: Population and Housing • Section 3.13: Public Services • Section 3.14: Recreation • Section 3.15: Transportation • Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources • Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems Organization of Environmental Resource Section Each environmental resource section is organized as follows: Summary of Impacts provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project. A discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is also included; however, specific impact findings associated with the development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Environmental Setting provides an overview of the existing physical environmental conditions in the study area that could be affected by implementation of the Project (i.e., the “affected environment”). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, each environmental resource section will include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project area to provide the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Typically, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published; however, a different baseline may be used in specific cases where it is deemed appropriate. For the Project, the environmental setting described in each of the following sections will be that which existed on November 16, 2023, the date the NOP was published. Regulatory Setting identifies the plans, policies, laws, and regulations that are relevant to each resource area and describes permits and other approvals necessary to implement future housing projects. Compliance with these applicable laws and regulations is mandatory unless otherwise noted. Therefore, as it relates to the impact analysis, compliance is assumed because the laws in effect require it, and mitigation would generally not be required when compliance with an existing law or regulation would either avoid or reduce a significant impact to a level below significance. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-3 Thresholds of Significance identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance of the environmental impacts for each resource topic, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126, 15126.2, and 15143. The thresholds of significance used in this Draft EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines; best available data; and regulatory standards of federal, state, and local agencies. Impacts and Mitigation Measures identify the level of each environmental impact by comparing the effects of the project to the environmental setting. Key methods and assumptions used to frame and conduct the impact analysis, as well as issues or potential impacts not discussed further (e.g., such issues for which the project would have no impact), are also described. Project impacts are organized numerically in each subsection (e.g., Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3). A bold-font environmental impact statement precedes the discussion of each impact while its level of significance succeeds the discussion of each impact. The discussion that follows the impact summary includes the substantial evidence supporting the impact significance conclusion. Mitigation Measures describe any feasible measures that could avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant adverse impacts, with measures having to be fully enforceable through incorporation into the Project (PRC Section 21081.6[b]). Mitigation measures are not required for environmental impacts that are found to be less than significant. Where feasible mitigation for a significant environmental impact is available, it is described following the impact. Where sufficient feasible mitigation is not available to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level, or where the lead agency lacks the authority to ensure that the mitigation is implemented when needed, the impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance After Mitigation describes the level of impact significance remaining after mitigation measures are implemented. Level of Significance Determining the severity of Project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision makers mitigate the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR to less than significant, if feasible. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision-makers to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR. The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G Checklist; federal, state, and local regulatory schemes; regional and local plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as one of the following determinations: IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-4 • Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. • Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. • Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if they are readily available and easily achievable. • No Impact. The Project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). Format Used for Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The format adopted in this Draft EIR to present the evaluation of environmental impacts is described and illustrated below. Summary Heading of Impact Impact AQ-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact abbreviation identifies the section of the report (AQ for Air Quality in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact. Impact Analysis A narrative analysis follows the impact statement. Level of Significance Before Mitigation This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is proposed. Mitigation Measures In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to federal and state regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact. In addition, policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the impact may be cited. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-5 Project-specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below: MM AQ-1: Project-specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degree feasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact with which it is associated (AQ-1 in this example). Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are shown in Table 3.0-1. Table 3.0-1: Environmental Resource Abbreviations Code Environmental Resource Topic AES Aesthetics AQ Air Quality BIO Biological Resources CUL Cultural Resources EN Energy GEO Geology and Soils GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials HYD Hydrology and Water Quality LU Land Use and Planning NOI Noise POP Population and Housing PUB Public Services TRANS Transportation TCR Tribal Cultural Resources UTIL Utilities and Service Systems Level of Significance After Mitigation This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-6 According to the CEQA Guidelines: Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable and that compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or multiple separate projects. b) “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15355) In addition, as stated in CEQA Guidelines: The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064[T][5]). Cumulative Impact Setting An analysis of cumulative impacts follows the project-specific impacts and mitigation measures evaluation in each section. As established in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of “closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area” (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15355). The State CEQA Guidelines define a cumulative impact as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are significant or that compound or increase other significant environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). The incremental impact of a project, although less than significant on its own, may be considerable when viewed in the cumulative context of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. A considerable contribution is considered significant from the point of view of cumulative impact analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which a project is considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified EIR for such a planning document. This cumulative analysis uses a combination of the “list” approach and the “projections” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The plan and projections approach relies on an adopted plan or reliable projection that describes the significant cumulative impact. This Draft EIR combines both the project list and projection approaches to generate the most reliable future projections possible. A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects causing IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-7 related impacts. In this case, the Housing Element Update itself is a plan-level document which provides for increased residential development within the City across a relatively broad geography, including potential housing development that exceeds the regional forecast included for the City in regional plans. The nature of the Project does not alter the need to analyze cumulative impacts, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1), regional growth projections prepared for Connect SoCal 2024 and contained in the County’s transportation model are used for the analysis of VMT and related topics such as air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Geographic Scope The geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts is dependent on the resource being analyzed. The geographic area associated with the proposed project’s environmental impacts defines the boundaries of the area used for compiling the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis. Each section of this Draft EIR considers the specific geographic area that is directly related to the individual topic addressed within that section. Some analyses including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing, rely on much larger geographic areas such as the Southern California region. For issues that may have regional cumulative implications, the cumulative impact analysis for this EIR is based on Connect SoCal 2024, Southern California’s most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the forecasts in Connect SoCal 2024, in 2050 Seal Beach is estimated to have 13,900 dwelling units. However, as of January 1, 2024, the Department of Finance’s (DOF) population and housing estimates identify that Seal Beach is currently estimated to have 14,678 dwelling units, which is more than the number of projected dwelling units for 2050. Therefore, development under the Project in conjunction with development forecasted in Connect SoCal 2024 is accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis. For analyses that may have more localized or neighborhood implications (biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public services, utilities), the cumulative impact analysis includes development projects that have recently been approved or have a pending application. Additionally, it includes potential future developments and opportunity sites that have been identified in the Housing Element Update for the adjacent cities. The cumulative impact analysis also includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project as it is a future development project in the City and currently under review. Table 3.0-2: Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact and Method of Evaluation Resource Topic Geographic Area Method of Evaluation Aesthetics Immediate project vicinity Projects Air Quality Local (toxic air contaminants) air basin (construction-related and mobile sources) Projects and Projections Biological Resources Immediate project vicinity and region Projects IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-8 Resource Topic Geographic Area Method of Evaluation Cultural and Historical Resources Project site only (does not contribute to cumulative impacts) Projects Energy Immediate project vicinity and region Projects and Projections Geology and Soils Immediate project vicinity Projects Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change State Projections Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project site only (does not contribute to cumulative impacts) Projects Hydrology and Water Quality Immediate project vicinity and region Projects Land Use and Planning City Projects Noise Immediate project vicinity (effects are highly localized) Projects Population and Housing Region Projects and Projections Public Services Immediate project vicinity Projects and Projections Recreation City and immediate vicinity Projects Transportation Immediate project vicinity Projects and Projections Tribal Cultural Resources Project site only (does not contribute to cumulative impacts) Projects Utilities and Service Systems Local Projects Notes: Projects = the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects Projections = the use of projections contained in relevant planning documents List of Related Plans and Projects The list of past, present, and probable future projects can be found in Table 3.0-3, below. Figure 3-1 shows the location of each project. As noted above, where a cumulative impact is significant when compared to existing or baseline conditions, the analysis must address whether the project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is “considerable.” If the contribution of the project is considerable, then the EIR must identify potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to a less-than-considerable level. If the project’s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant and no mitigation of the project contribution is required. The cumulative impacts analysis is formatted in the same manner as the Project-specific impacts. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-9 Table 3.0-3: Cumulative Past, Present, and Probable Future Residential Projects in the City and Surrounding Area # Project Name* Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-10 # Project Name* Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Analysis 3.0-11 # Project Name* Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) site for potential future residential development 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 *The individual projects and sites from adjacent cities’ Housing Elements to be included in this table was determined using a criteria of being located within one mile of Seal Beach’s city boundaries and a minimum of 100 dwelling units proposed. IJ 0 E Willow St E Stearns St ia State ity Long ach a 83ft Q) > <( Q) "2 Q) > 0 ro c.. £ 7th St J • lli] 9 I I .J I I \ \ I \ I I \ \ I I I \' I I I (\d st I t 6 / 5 ~8 ---1 /// ~/// / / 7 / / //, IT] a 58ft 2 •• I I I C C <( ro t ro ~ • 3 • I / / I I I / / f / Los Alamitos 10 • Katella Ave Farquhar Ave Ross moor ' •• ' Old Ranch Country c 1 ib • • Wes t m in ste r Ave Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Cerritos Ave 0 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Navy Go lf Cours e Seal Be ach # 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ Cha Lil ;a: Q) > 4 ~ • '" ::}' @I Garden Gro 11 -0 0:: ro u Project Name Old Ranch County Club Naval Weapons Station Water Storage Site Lampson Project Onni Marina Shores Carmel Partners Holland Partners ~ Lil C ro • Long Beach Housing Element Site Long Beach Housing Element Site Orange County Housing Element Site Westminster Housing Element Sites Vl 0 ro ols () Stantec • Cumulative Proj ects ■ Housing Opportunity Sites ■ Main Street Program ■ Residential Component of the Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project City Limits Cypress Garden Grove Huntington Beach Long Bea ch Los A lamitos Rossmoor Seal Beach Wes tmin ster N 2,000 4,000 @ Feet (At original document size of 8 .5x11) 1 :48,000 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAO 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, Torn Tom, Garmin, SafeGraph , Geo Technologies, In c , METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA , NPS, USDA, USFWS World Hillshade: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin , NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri , GEBCO, Garmin, NGS Project Location City of Seal Beach , California Prepared by KOLP on 2025-03-10 TR by SET on 2025-03-10 JR by JW on 2025-03-10 Client/Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Figure No. Figure 3 -1 Title Cumulative Past, Present, and Probable Future Projects 204266500 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section . Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-1 3.1 AESTHETICS This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for aesthetics. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to aesthetics that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; and the Project impacts would be less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to design guidelines and development standards outlined in its Specific Plan; impacts associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting Visual resources in the City feature the Pacific Ocean coastal waterfront, including beaches, the shoreline, wetlands, and marshlands. There are approximately two miles of beachfront shoreline in the City which is considered to be of regional significance for passive and active recreational activities. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Los Cerritos Wetlands contain marshlands and ecological areas that provide visual resources for the City. Due to the extremely developed nature of the City, there are not many visual resources and prominent viewpoints available other than the waterfront. Furthermore, the southeastern half of the City encompasses the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, which consists of vast areas of vacant lands. The northern portion of the City also abuts the Los Alamitos JFTB, which includes military aviation operations and contains some areas with vacant lands. 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting Federal There are no federal regulations related to aesthetics that apply to the Project. State California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) contains resource planning and management policies applicable to lands within the Coastal Zone. Coastal management policies addressing aesthetics and public scenic views are applicable to the Housing Element Update. “Scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance” (PRC Division 20, Chapter 3, Article 6, Section 30251). In addition, it is noted that development “shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and where feasible, to restore and enhance II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-2 visual quality in visually degraded areas.” The Coastal Act protects public scenic views, but does not include policies or regulations for the protection of private views. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach (City of Seal Beach 2003). The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022, though several revisions have followed in an effort to obtain certification from HCD. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to aesthetics are presented below: Land Use Element The City’s Land Use Element contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to aesthetics that apply to the Project: Features of the Community Despite an increase in regional population experienced throughout the surrounding metropolitan area, the City of Sea Beach has experienced a slight decline in population while maintaining its own identity and preserving its unique character. Seal Beach’s individual small town identity is due to its physical separation from various centers of urban development found in surrounding cities. People have been attracted to Seal Beach primarily due to its unique geographical location, educational opportunity, attractive beaches, ideal climate, and small town friendly character. A goal of the City is to maintain and promote those social and physical qualities that enhance the character of the community and the environment in which we live. Waterfront Seal Beach’s coastal setting distinguishes it from any adjacent coastal communities. The shoreline, one of the City’s most valuable assets, shall be maintained and improved to provide maximum benefits to residents and visitors. Preservation of the ecological balance of the waterfront and the marshlands should be considered during review of any proposed developments in this planning area. In addition, the City of Seal Beach shall actively identify and resolve issues in the preservation and the more efficient utilization of the existing pier parking lots to better serve the community and beach patrons. Housing Element Update The Housing Element Update contains the following policies related to aesthetics that apply to the Project: IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-3 Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. Policy 4h: Promote a safe, healthful, aesthetically pleasing environment that strengthens individual and family life. Policy 4i: Preserve and enhance viable residential neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity. Policy 4k: Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety, and aesthetic conditions. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City of Seal Beach has adopted a Zoning Ordinance and related zoning map. The Zoning Ordinance and zoning map identify specific types of land use, intensity of use, and development and performance standards applicable to specific areas and parcels of land within the City. The Zoning Ordinance includes specific development and building standards for parcels within the City that were adopted to ensure new developments and growth are conducted in an orderly manner and achieve balanced residential, commercial and civic uses. 3.1.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant aesthetics impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis Analysis of the Project’s visual impacts is based on an evaluation of the changes to the existing visual resources that would result from implementation of the Project. In determining the extent and implications of the visual changes, consideration was given to: the existing visual quality of the affected environment; specific changes in the visual character and quality of the affected environment; the extent to which the affected environment contains places or features that provide unique visual experiences or that have been designated in plans and policies for protection or special consideration; and the sensitivity of viewers and their activities and the extent to which these activities are related to the aesthetic qualities affected by the Project. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s aesthetic impacts are significant. Would the Project: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-4 accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day- or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Visual Character and Scenic Quality Impact AES-1 In an urbanized area, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impact Analysis Implementation of the Project would result in the identification of parcels located within the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the City to meet its RHNA. Implementation of the Project would also result in the creation of a new zoning designation, rezoning of several identified Housing Opportunity Sites, and implementation of the Main Street Program allowing for housing on the second floor of commercial buildings, and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur on these sites at this time. However, development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan is being evaluated in a standalone EIR. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within highly urbanized areas of the City and are surrounded by existing urban developments. Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located on land that is already developed with urban uses and the Project does not propose Housing Opportunity Sites on land that provides scenic resources or scenic vistas. Program 1b (MC/RHD Zone) of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. The City would establish a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre, and a maximum building height of five IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-5 stories. Other changes to zoning designations include rezoning a former oil extraction property to the City’s existing HDR-33 zoning district to residential use under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) (City of Seal Beach 2024). The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The proposed new MC/RHD zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. As the Project does not propose any specific site development at this time, the proposed rezoning of the six Housing Opportunity Sites identified would not result in conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not require rezoning and is being proposed under a Mixed-Use Country Club planning concept with the Specific Plan as the mechanism that would incorporate design guidelines and development standards to ensure development compatibility with adjacent land uses. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. The remaining two Housing Opportunity Sites are not proposed to be rezoned and are proposed to be developed in the future in accordance with the existing zoning designations and development standards of the site, including those that govern scenic quality. Future development of these sites facilitated by the Project would be anticipated to be developed in accordance with the development standards of the site. Unless exempt, future development projects would also be subject to subsequent and individual environmental review to ensure that the proposed development does not result in conflicts with zoning and regulations governing scenic quality. The Project also includes implementation of the Main Street Program (Program 1r of the Housing Element Update) which commits to modifying the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Program area. As described previously, the Project would not propose any actual development to occur on or within the Main Street Program area at this time and would amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for future residential developments to be proposed above the ground floor within the Main Street Program area. Though the proposed amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan would result in changes to the allowable development types and subsequently the visual appearance within the Main Street Program area, approval of the proposed amendment would not result in conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality within the Main Street Program area. Additionally, voters approved Measure Z in 2008 which limited the maximum height of residences in the City’s Old Town area to 25 feet. Measure Z applies to the area of the City north of the centerline of Ocean Avenue, east of First Street, south of Marina Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, and that area south of Ocean between Electric Avenue and Tenth Street. Future developments facilitated by the Project in the Main Street Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the provisions of Measure Z. Future developments proposed within the Main Street Program area would also be required to be developed in accordance with the development standards and regulations governing scenic quality outlined in the Main Street Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance. Future developments within the Main Street Program area would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review (except by-right pursuant to state housing law) and II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-6 review per the design criteria of the Main Street Specific Plan to ensure that the proposed development does not result in impacts to scenic quality. Individual future developments under the Project must comply with the City’s objective design criteria to ensure that proposed individual developments would be developed in accordance with zoning standards and existing regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality. Individual development under the Project would be required to be designed and constructed to design standards and would not be anticipated to construct new structures that would be incompatible with the existing surrounding visual character. As described above, the City’s Housing Element Update includes Policies 4h, 4j, and 4k which require developments to maintain and enhance scenic quality in the City. The Project’s new zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, zoning code, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur at this time. Future development projects proposed under the Housing Element Update may deviate from certain development standards of the applicable zoning designations or utilize state housing laws and programs, such as the State density bonus program, resulting in taller buildings and high-density developments. However, future developments would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and subject to the City’s objective design criteria, design requirements of the Main Street Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and applicable General Plan policies to ensure future development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Unless exempt, future developments proposed under the Housing Element Update would also be subject to subsequent environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is being proposed under a Mixed-Use Country Club planning concept with the Specific Plan as the mechanism that would incorporate design guidelines and development standards to ensure development compatibility with adjacent land uses. The residential component associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to the design guidelines and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-7 3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative aesthetic impacts is the immediate project vicinity and area surrounding the site. This geographic scope is appropriate for aesthetics as the area within the view of the Project is most likely to experience changes in visual character and experience light and glare impacts. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.1-1 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to aesthetics and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.1-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Aesthetics # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 Cumulative development identified in Table 3.1-1 are located within close proximity to one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and therefore, development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.1-1 could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics 3.1-8 Development in Seal Beach facilitated by the Project in conjunction with buildout of cumulative projects in the City and surrounding areas could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although visual quality could improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and vacant sites. Implementation of the Project would encourage increased housing development at sites already developed with other uses. Anticipated Project related impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development allowed per existing regulations, is expected to increase housing development citywide in already developed areas. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative developments could result in impacts to aesthetics. However, similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with existing regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding aesthetic impacts and protecting visual quality. Cumulative developments would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building standards and regulations adopted by the City including, but not limited to, building heights and outdoor lighting regulations. Potential aesthetic impacts of future developments facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each discretionary cumulative development project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts related to aesthetics and identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant cumulative aesthetic impact and the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts. 3.1.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed October 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2024. 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted February 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cle an-compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-1 3.2 AIR QUALITY This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for air quality. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to air quality that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The Project would not result in other emissions, such as odor, that would affect a substantial number of people. The impacts are considered less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the emissions calculations, health risk, and odor analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting The Project is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, which is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). SCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Regulatory oversight authority regarding air quality rests at the local, state, and federal levels with the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), respectively. The existing air quality setting is described further below. Climate and Meteorology The SCAB covers approximately 12,000 square miles, consisting of Orange County and the urbanized areas of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-2 perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate (SCAQMD 1993). Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (measured both in units of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5] and in units of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]), and lead (Pb). Ozone. Most ground-level ozone is formed as a result of complex photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and oxygen. ROG and NOx are considered precursors to the formation of ozone, a highly reactive gas that can damage lung tissue and affect respiratory function. While ozone in the lower atmosphere is considered a damaging air pollutant, ozone in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, as it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, atmospheric processes preclude ground-level ozone from reaching the upper atmosphere (USEPA 2023). Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Elevated levels of CO can result in harmful health effects, especially for the young and elderly, and can also contribute to global climate change (USEPA 2023). Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas primarily produced as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. NO2 can also lead to the formation of ozone in the lower atmosphere. NO2 can cause respiratory ailments, especially in the young and elderly, and can lead to degradations in the health of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (USEPA 2023). Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is primarily emitted from the combustion of coal and oil by steel mills, pulp and paper mills, and non-ferrous smelters. High concentrations of SO2 can aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in asthmatics and others who suffer from emphysema or bronchitis. SO2 also contributes to acid rain, which in turn, can lead to the acidification of lakes and streams (USEPA 2023). Particulate Matter. Airborne PM is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. PM is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Particles vary widely in size, shape, and chemical composition, and may contain inorganic ions, metallic compounds, elemental carbon, organic compounds, and compounds from the earth’s crust. Particles are defined by their diameter for air quality regulatory purposes. Those with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) are inhalable into the lungs and can induce adverse health effects. Fine particulate matter is defined as particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). Therefore, PM2.5 compromises a portion of PM10. Emissions from combustion of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel or wood produce much of the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air, as well as significant proportion of PM10. PM10 also includes dust from construction sites, landfills and agriculture, wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, wind-blown dust from open lands, pollen, and fragments of bacteria. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-3 PM may be either directly emitted from sources (primarily particles) or formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions of gases (secondary particles) such as SO2, NOx, and certain organic compounds (USEPA 2023). Lead. Sources of Pb include pipes, fuel, and paint, although the use of Pb in these materials has declined dramatically over the years. Historically, a main source of Pb was automobile emissions. Pb can be inhaled directly or ingested by consuming Pb-contaminated food, water, or dust. Fetuses and children are most susceptible to Pb poisoning, which can result in heart disease and nervous system damage (USEPA 2024a). Through regulations, USEPA has gradually reduced the Pb content of gasoline. This program has essentially eliminated violations of the Pb standard in urban areas except those areas with Pb point sources. Attainment Status The USEPA and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “non- attainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National non-attainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Attainment status is based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring value exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual standard for PM2.5 is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) identifies two types of NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (USEPA 2023). The CAAQS are equal to or more stringent than the NAAQS and include pollutants for which national standards do not exist. Table 3.2-1 presents the applicable CAAQS and NAAQS. Table 3.2-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Primary Secondary Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standards 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) -- 8-hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) -- IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-4 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Primary Secondary Carbon monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual arithmetic mean -- 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) -- 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (80 µg/m3) -- 3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) -- -- Respirable Particulate Matter Smaller than 10 Microns in Diameter (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 -- Same as Primary Standards 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter Smaller than 2.5 Microns in Diameter (PM2.5)3 Annual arithmetic mean 12 µg/m3 9.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 24-hour No separate standard 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standards Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 -- -- Lead (Pb) 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 -- -- Calendar quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-month average -- 0.15 µg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) -- -- Vinyl chloride (chloroethene) 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) -- -- Visibility reducing particles 8-hour In 1989, the Air Resources Board converted the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard to instrumental -- -- IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-5 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Primary Secondary equivalents, which are extinction of 0.23 per kilometer. Notes: 1. CO, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, O3, PM10, and visibility reducing particles standards are not to be exceeded. 2. Not to be exceeded more than once a year except for annual standards. 3. On February 7, 2024, the USEPA issued a pre-publication version of the Final Rule to lower the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from 12.0 µg/m3 to 9.0 µg/m3. -- = no standard established µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB 2016. Table 3.2-2 presents the federal and state attainment status for the SCAB, in which the Project is located. The Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Table 3.2-2: Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3) – 1-Hour and 8-Hour Non-Attainment (Extreme) Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 1-Hour and 8-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – 1-Hour and Annual Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Annual Unclassifiable/Attainment * Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Non-Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Annual Non-Attainment (Serious) Non-Attainment Lead (Pb) – 3-Month Rolling Non-Attainment * Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) – 1-Hour * Attainment Sulfates – 24-Hour * Attainment Vinyl Chloride – 24-Hour * Attainment Note: * = Not Applicable/No Standards. Source: SCAQMD 2016a. Ambient Air Quality The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Project sites is the Anaheim Monitoring Station located at 1630 West Pampas Lane. Table 3.2-3 includes a summary of the air quality monitoring data for the years IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-6 2021 through 2023. The table shows the number of times the station recorded pollutant concentrations above federal and state air quality standards and the highest annual reading for each pollutant. Table 3.2-3: Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023) Pollutant Air Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2021 2022 2023 Ozone (ppm) Maximum 1-hour measurement 0.089 0.102 0.089 Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 1 0 Maximum 8-hour measurement 0.068 0.076 0.076 Number of days over National 8-hour standard 0 1 2 Number of days over California 8-hour standard 0 1 2 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppb) Maximum 1-hour measurement 67.1 53.0 50.9 Annual average 12 11 10 Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 0 0 PM2.5 (µg/m3) Maximum 24-hour measurement 54.4 33.1 45.6 Annual average 11.6 9.9 * Number of days over National 24-hour standard 10 0 1 PM10 (µg/m3) Maximum 24-hour measurement 63.6 67.0 97.8 Annual average 23.4 20.9 20.6 Number of days over National 24-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 24-hour standard 1 1 1 Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per liter; * means there was insufficient data to determine the value. Source: CARB 2024a. Odors Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from the psychological (i.e., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to the physiological (i.e., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others have varying sensitivities to odors; and people may have different reactions to the same odor (e.g., bakery, gasoline). It is important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience (e.g., a description of flowery or sweet). Intensity refers to the strength of the odor and depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-7 the odorant concentration decreases, the odor intensity weakens, and it eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant drops below a human’s detection threshold. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air but, due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are not subject to NAAQS or CAAQS ambient air quality standards. Instead, USEPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with SCAQMD rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national level, USEPA has established national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based, source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. The following provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects. Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the CARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute approximately 42 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 55 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources, contributing about three percent of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (CARB 2024b). In October 2000, CARB issued a report entitled Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM. The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-8 engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel through advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. When fully implemented, the DRRP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel-fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, CARB continues to promote the use of alternative fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (CARB 2024b). In comparison to year 2010 inventory of statewide DPM emissions, CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be reduced by more than 50 percent. DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (also called “soot” or “black carbon”) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. Diesel exhaust also contains gaseous pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx. NOx emissions from diesel engines are important because they can undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere leading to formation of PM2.5 and O3. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen accounting for an estimated 70 percent of the total known cancer risks in California. DPM is estimated to increase statewide cancer risk by 520 cancer occurrences per million residents exposed over an estimated 70-year lifetime. Non- cancer health effects associated with exposure to DPM include premature death, exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, and decreased lung function in children. Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks (CARB 2024b). Individuals most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects of DPM are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who often have chronic health problems. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to DPM (CARB 2024b). In addition to its health effects, DPM significantly contributes to haze and reduced visibility. Valley Fever Valley fever is an infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. The fungus that causes Valley fever, Coccidiodes immitis (C. immitis), is found in the southwestern United States, parts of Mexico and Central America, and parts of South America. The fungus grows naturally and is endemic in many areas within California. People can get this infection by breathing in fungal spores from the air, especially when the wind blows the soil with the fungal spores into the air, or the dirt is moved by human activity. About 10,000 cases in the United States are reported each year, mostly from Arizona and California. Valley fever can be misdiagnosed because its symptoms are like those of other illnesses. For most people, the symptoms of Valley fever will go away within a few months without any treatment. Some people may develop a more severe infection, especially those with compromised immune systems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-9 In California, the number of reported Valley fever cases has greatly increased in recent years. Since 2000, the number of reported cases from increased from 1,000 to more than 9,000 cases reported in 2019 (California Department of Public Health 2021). In 2022, 297 cases of Valley fever were recorded within Orange County (California Department of Public Health 2024). Asbestos Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals with useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings constructed prior to 1977 when it was banned for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil disturbing activities in areas with deposits present (USEPA 2024b). Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiovascular diseases. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The Project sites contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences. 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Air quality within the Project area is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent. Federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990. Federal Clean Air Act The FCAA required the USEPA to establish NAAQS, and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-10 standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table 3.2-1. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the USEPA established the NESHAPs. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Among these sources include asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). NESHAPs include requirements pertaining to the inspection, notification, handling, and disposal of ACBMs associated with the demolition and renovation of structures. Non-Road Diesel Rule The USEPA has established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and locomotives. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, would be required to comply with the emissions standards. State California Air Resources Board The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS, which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel and engine used. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 3.2-1. California Clean Air Act The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non- attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements. Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) (1983) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-11 forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures. Assembly Bill 617 In response to AB 617 (2017), the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. The Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also includes new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout the state. Regulatory Attainment Designations Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The USEPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-12 As noted previously, the Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Low-Emission Vehicle Program The CARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the state’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 2012, CARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments include more stringent emission standards for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for new passenger vehicles. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program The CARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on- road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. CARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others. In addition, the CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation was established to meet federal attainment standards. This regulation requires heavy-duty diesel vehicles that operate in California to reduce TAC emissions from their exhaust. Diesel exhaust is responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Therefore, as of January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses were required to have 2010 or newer model year engines to reduce PM and NOx emissions. To help ensure that the benefits of this regulation are achieved, starting in 2020, only vehicles compliant with this regulation were registered by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Regional SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the following six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategies pursuant to SB 375, growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the SCAQMD air quality plans (SCAG 2023). In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, which is entitled Connect SoCal 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long- range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-13 mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2024). The 2024 RTP/SCS supersedes the previous RTP/SCS that was adopted in 2020. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded, and the air quality conditions are maintained in the SCAB. Responsibilities of SCAQMD include, but not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA. SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan SCAB is designated as non-attainment for both federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. Because the SCAB currently exceeds these NAAQS and CAAQS, the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. The most recent air plan is the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), created in conjunction with the SCAG, CARB, and USEPA to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards. The 2022 AQMP accounts for projected population growth and predicted future emissions in energy and transportation demand, and determined control strategies for the eventual achievement of the NAAQS attainment designations. These control strategies are either organized into the SCAQMD rules and regulations, or otherwise set forth as formal SCAQMD recommendations to other agencies. The 2022 AQMP includes policies that are consistent with the SCAQMD and specify review according to the recommendations of SCAQMD guidelines. Other policies are aimed at reducing transportation emissions and emissions from major stationary sources (SCAQMD 2022). SCAQMD Rules and Regulations The SCAQMD rules are regulations that may apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: • Rule 201: Permit to Construct. This rule requires that projects shall obtain a permit to construct from the SCAQMD prior to initiating construction activities. • Rule 401: Visible Emissions. This rule prohibits discharges of visible air contaminants from any single source. • Rule 402: Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge from any source such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-14 • Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. • Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings. This rule is intended to limit the volatile organic compounds (VOC) content on architectural coatings used within the SCAQMD. • Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: This rule specifies work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach prepared their General Plan in September 2003 in order to plan for the City’s development. The 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as the updated Housing Element include the following goals to promote energy efficiency which would in turn reduce air quality emissions (City of Seal Beach 2003, City of Seal Beach 2024). Housing Element Update The Housing Element Update contains the following goals and policies related to air quality that apply to the Project: Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. • Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. • Policy 6b: Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. 3.2.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant air quality impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology and Modeling Parameters The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28 was used to estimate construction and operational impacts of the Project. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-15 Construction Construction emissions were estimated for the most emissions-intensive future development under the Project, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most dwelling units. At maximum buildout, Housing Opportunity Site 4 can accommodate 552 high- density dwelling units at a density of 46 dwelling units per acre. Daily emissions were quantified for the construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 and assessed in comparison to the SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, a qualitative assessment of construction of all Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program is included in the analysis. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix B. Operations Operational emissions associated with the Project were estimated for the year 2029, estimated buildout of the Project, using CalEEMod and compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The trip generation rate for each land use was updated to be consistent with the Project-specific VMT Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, and the trip lengths and purposes were left as CalEEMod defaults. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix B. Thresholds of Significance Pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency. The SCAQMD has adopted mass daily thresholds of significance for NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, CO, and Pb to determine the significance of a project’s potential air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, if a project’s emissions exceed thresholds of significance, then the Project would be expected to result in a cumulatively considered net increase of any criteria air pollutant. Table 3.24, below, presents the mass daily thresholds applied to the Project and used for purposes of this analysis. Table 3.2-4: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Emissions Thresholds Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Pb Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Notes: N/A = not applicable Source: SCAQMD 1993. In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether air quality impacts are significant. Would the Project: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-16 • 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? • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Air Quality Plan Impact AQ-1 The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impact Analysis Air districts are required to prepare air quality plans to identify strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. As noted previously, the SCAB is designated as a non-attainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Accordingly, SCAQMD, in collaboration with CARB and SCAG, has prepared air quality plans, including the 2022 AQMP, to achieve attainment of the applicable ozone and PM standards. The SCAG’s RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, is also considered an applicable air quality plan. Project consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 is evaluated in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR. The 2022 AQMP was adopted in December 2022 and represents the most updated regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and minimizing public health concerns related to air quality. The 2022 AQMP particularly focuses on attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Project would be considered to conflict with the 2022 AQMP if it would: 1. Contribute to exceedances and/or delay attainment of the ozone standards; 2. Result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the project area; or 3. Interfere with implementation of the ozone reduction measures established in the AQMP. With regard to Item 1, air districts establish emissions thresholds to demonstrate the point at which a project would be considered to increase the regional air quality violations. As described in further detail under Impact AIR-2, construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. VOC is an ozone precursor and, by exceeding the VOC threshold of significance, cumulative buildout of the Project may delay attainment of the ozone AAQS. With regard to Item 2, the population projections in the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP are based on the regional growth projections included in the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS (SCAQMD 2022). According to the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-17 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report prepared for the 2020 RTP/SCS, the City of Seal Beach housing stock is projected to grow from 13,100 households in 2016 to 13,300 households in 2045 (SCAG 2020). The City’s household growth projected in the 2020 RTP/SCS (200 households), and therefore in the 2022 AQMP, is less than what is planned in the Housing Element Update, which plan for up to 1,339 new dwelling units by 2029 to accommodate its RHNA allocation of 1,243 units. However, the assumed residential development potential of the Housing Element Update is developed using conservative assumptions that would develop the Housing Opportunity Sites at below the maximum allowable density. For the purposes of analysis contained in this Draft EIR, the City wishes to analyze a more intense level of development so that potential impacts resulting from projects that might propose maximum developable densities are considered as part of this EIR. Therefore, the analysis contained herein assumed buildout under the Project (Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program) and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project to result in the potential for 1,773 new dwelling units. Implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. With regard to Item 3, the 2022 AQMP notes that attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by 2037 will require both continuation and acceleration of existing ozone reduction strategies, as well as deployment of new strategies. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include stationary and mobile source NOx reduction strategies, supplemented by strategic VOC emission reductions. The following ozone reduction measures identified in the 2022 AQMP are relevant to residential land uses: • R-CMB-01: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Water Heating • R-CMB-02: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Space Heating • R-CMB-03: Emissions Reductions from Residential Cooking Devices • R-CMB-04: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Other Combustion Sources • CTS-01: Further Emission Reductions from Coatings, Solvents, Adhesives, and Lubricants Each of the foregoing measures are intended for implementation at the local or regional government level, rather than the project level. For example, the 2022 AQMP notes that each measure shall be implemented by (1) adopting a new rule to require compliance and (2) offering incentive funds to facilitate adoption of low-emissions technologies. Because the measures are not directly applicable to the Project, development facilitated under the Project would not interfere with implementation of the air quality improvement strategies established in the AQMP. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-18 would increase the total dwelling units to 1,773 and would further increase the Project’s household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP. Additionally, the impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5 below. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Table 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Emissions were found to exceed thresholds and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even with the implementation of mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: • Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: • All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-19 • Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by California Air Resources Board (CARB). • Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. • Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. • Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). • Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Prohibition of natural gas hearths. • Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. • Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. • Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) content (0 to 10 g/L). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-20 Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Criteria Pollutants Impact AQ-2 The Project would 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. Impact Analysis In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If an individual project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As noted previously, the Project does not propose any individual development projects at this time but, rather, would facilitate the future development of up to 1,773 dwelling units as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Construction Emissions Construction activities facilitated by the Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants due to the use of off-road equipment, heavy-duty haul trucks, and employee commutes to and from the construction sites. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated from earth-moving activities. Emissions from construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. Specific buildout details of each Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area are not available at this time; accordingly, this analysis presents estimated construction emissions associated with the most emissions-intensive future development project under the Project, which entails buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4. Housing Opportunity Site 4 totals 27 acres, 12 acres of which can be developed, and was modeled to accommodate 552 multi-family units, based on the maximum allowable buildout. The estimated criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 are presented in Table 3.2-5. Table 3.2-5: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 166.23 13.78 36.26 0.04 6.14 1.77 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix B. As shown above, buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissions- intensive buildout out of the eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, may IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-21 generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD mass daily thresholds for VOC. These emission calculations are based on CalEEMod default factors based on land use type and size which are generally more conservative than project-specific inputs. However, performing more specific emissions calculations for any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area to determine significance on a project site by project site basis would be speculative. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and future CEQA review. However, since the largest Housing Opportunity site exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, other sites may result in potentially significant emissions due to a more intensive construction timeline, additional demolition and grading, or additional construction trips. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify construction emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, including through the use of super-compliant VOC coatings. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction exhaust emissions, potential future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction. As a result, the cumulative impact from construction of the Project remains significant and unavoidable. Operational Emissions For the purposes of the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, implementation of the Project and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in future development of up to 1,773 new dwelling units. Emissions during operation of the Project would be generated primarily from resident vehicle trips to and from the sites (mobile sources). In addition, the buildout facilitated by the Project would generate emissions from area sources, which include the use of fireplaces, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and others. Estimated operational emissions from cumulative Project buildout are presented in Table 3.2-6. Table 3.2-6: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 28.4 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3 Area 50.0 0.00 101 <0.005 0.05 0.04 Energy 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 0.49 Total1 79.0 28.3 356 0.75 71.5 18.8 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No 1 Totals may not appear to sum due to rounding. Source: Appendix B. As shown in the table, full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-22 As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-2, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify their individual operational emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. For this example, architectural coatings were limited to those with a VOC content less than 10 grams per liter. The emissions that would occur from operations with the implementation of mitigation are presented in Table 3.2-7. Table 3.2-7: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 28.6 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3 Area 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 0.45 Total 69.6 27.9 255 0.74 71.45 18.7 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix B. As shown above, even with mitigation, operational emissions of VOC would exceed the threshold of significance. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions, cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, the cumulative impact from operations of the Project remains significant and unavoidable. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion As shown in Table 3.2-5, construction emissions of the most intensive future development project under the Project, which entails buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, would exceed the applicable threshold of significance for VOC emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, a significant impact may occur. Additionally, as presented in Table 3.2-7, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, operational criteria pollutant emissions could exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-23 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Sensitive Receptors Impact AQ-3 The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact Analysis As discussed above, the Project itself does not propose any development; however, the Project would facilitate future development of up to 1,773 dwelling units throughout the City as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were evaluated at a programmatic level, and no air modeling was conducted for this analysis. This discussion qualitatively addresses whether implementation of the Project would expose sensitive receptors to construction-generated fugitive dust (PM10), Valley fever spores, naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), construction-generated DPM, or operational related TACs. According to CARB, some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. As noted previously in Section 3.2.1, Environmental Setting, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the area within the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences. Construction Emissions During construction associated with the Project, the potential exists for emissions of fugitive dust, Valley fever, NOA, and DPM to be released. Each TAC is discussed separately below. Fugitive Dust and Valley Fever Fugitive dust would be generated during construction facilitated by the Project. As noted previously, Valley fever is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of a fungus, C. immitis, that lives in soil. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-24 Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities. Most of the fugitive dust generated during construction activities would remain localized and would be deposited near each construction site. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, limits the discharge of PM emissions and establishes Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction activities (SCAQMD 2005). Consistent with the SCAQMD Best Available Control Measures, construction of each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to use water trucks to stabilize soils. In addition, the City of Seal Beach is generally built out; therefore, much of the development facilitated by the Project would occur in urban areas where conditions are generally not dry, dusty, or windy. Furthermore, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, development of each future development projects subject to discretionary approval shall evaluate their individual construction emissions. If the future development project is determined to result in PM emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, then minimization measures would be incorporated to reduce PM emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Overall, construction activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in sensitive receptor exposure to substantial concentrations of fugitive dust, including dust that may contain C. immitis spores. Asbestos Construction in areas of rock formations that contain NOA could release asbestos to the air and pose a health hazard. A review of the map with areas more likely to have rock formations containing NOA in California indicates that there is no known asbestos in the City of Seal Beach (USGS 2011). Therefore, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to NOA. Many of the future development projects on Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Steet Program facilitated by the Project would entail demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate new housing. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material” unless proven otherwise. ACBMs could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, would ensure that any ACBMs encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately, and risks to existing sensitive receptors would not occur. Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. Thresholds were established based on an individual project’s size, location, and distance to receptors. However, SCAQMD established in the PEIR for the 2016 AQMP that the LST screening methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as local general plans, specific plans, or air quality plans since the individual project plans are typically not known at plan adoption (SCAQMD 2016b). Therefore, since the analysis is evaluating the buildout of the Housing Element Update, a localized construction analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-25 the Project would be required to quantify the individual construction emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds. Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure to DPM from diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment can result in health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Pollutant concentrations are typically highest near sources of emissions and dissipate with distance. Thus, the sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites would be the most susceptible to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable. Operational Emissions The greatest potential for exposure to TACs during long-term operations is from the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks and stationary generators that use diesel fuel. The Project would facilitate development of up to 1,773 dwelling units throughout the City. The majority of vehicle trips associated with the Project would be from residents and, as a result, future developments associated with the Project would result in very few diesel truck trips. Additionally, the dwelling units developed under the Project are not expected to include any stationary generators. Should a generator be proposed as part of a future development under the Project, the project would be required by SCAQMD to evaluate the impacts of the generator as part of obtaining a Permit to Operate. For these reasons, once operational, the Project would not be expected to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of TACs. During operations, dust emissions would be negligible because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This would preclude the possibility of Project operations resulting in exposure to fugitive dust emissions and C. immitis spores that may result in Valley fever infection. As noted above, SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. A localized operational analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the Project would be required to quantify the individual operational emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction and operation of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in impacts to health risks. Construction of the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-26 residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would still be required to comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations pertaining to dust control and permitting and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, during construction, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the impact would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. However, the impact may remain significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any future development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non- cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-27 Odors Impact AQ-4 The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Analysis While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be unpleasant, leading to distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor. Construction activities facilitated by the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with diesel-fueled equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. Construction of all future developments facilitated by the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. The SCAQMD has identified land uses commonly subject to odor complaints. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project entails development of residential uses and would not involve any of the land uses identified to result in odor complaints nor involve any components with the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finally, SCAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402, Nuisance (SCAQMD 1976). Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made during implementation of the Project, the SCAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Residential developments are not land uses commonly subject to odor complaints and all developments within SCAQMD would be subject to rules and regulations pertaining to odor. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-28 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative air quality impacts is the extent of the air district. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.2-8 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to air quality and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.2-8: Cumulative Projects Related to Air Quality # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-29 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-30 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 592,100 square feet of area 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-31 Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.2-8 could increase air quality impacts within the air basin. Implementation of the Project, including future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline site, and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in emissions of pollutants from construction and operations. Additionally, the SCAB has been designated as a non- attainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. The existing non-attainment status of the SCAB is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB as well as pollutant transport from surrounding areas. Potential land use impacts are site-specific and would require evaluation of future housing development on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential air quality impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. While some future development projects may not result in a significant impact, as discussed above, other future development projects would result in emissions that are considered significant. Consequently, future developments facilitated by the Project could result in significant environmental impacts from pollutant emissions and may conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing pollutant emissions. Therefore, the Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, could result a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. 3.2.5 References California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed October 2024. _____. 2024b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel- exhaust-and-health. Accessed January 2024. California Department of Public Health. 2021. Valley Fever Fact Sheet. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ValleyFeverFact Sheet.pdf#:~:text=Valley%20fever%20%28also%20called%20coccidioidomycosis%20or%20%E2 %80%9Ccocci%E2%80%9D%29%20is,areas%20of%20California%20and%20the%20southwest ern%20United%20States. Accessed January 2024. ———. 2024. Valley Fever in California Dashboard. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverDashboard.aspx. Accessed January 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-32 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis). https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/index.html. Accessed January 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted February 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cle an-compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 2024. _____. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed January 2024. _____. 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 2024. ———. 2016a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs- caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed January 2024. ———. 2016b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/aqmd- projects/2016/2016aqmpfpeir.pdf?sfvrsn=10. Accessed October 2024. ———. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air- plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final- 2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16. Accessed January 2024. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2023. About Us. https://scag.ca.gov/about-us. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. Connect SoCal 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final- complete-040424.pdf?1714175547. Accessed October 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality 3.2-33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants?msclkid=402121eaa62811ec9f3a5e32e281714a. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024a. Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024b. Asbestos. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos. Accessed January 2024. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed January 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-1 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for biological resources which includes aquatic resources. It also describes impacts on biological resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. The analysis in this section is based on the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) prepared by Stantec Consulting Services (2024) for the Project. This document is provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Results incorporated into these documents are based on a desktop review of biological and aquatic resources surveys conducted for each of the components of the Project. The City of Seal Beach is proposing implementation of the City’s Housing Element Updates and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The Housing Element Update has identified eight Housing Opportunity Sites, a pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area throughout the City with potential to provide additional housing. The City of Seal Beach has almost no vacant, residentially zoned, developable land remaining, and large areas of vacant land are not available for development due to environmental restrictions or federal ownership. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites that have been selected can be categorized in two ways: Underutilized Sites that do not require zoning code changes, and Candidate Sites for Rezoning. The City of Seal Beach is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Project area is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites have a total land area of approximately 83.45 acres with a developable acreage of 35.05 acres and the Main Street Program covers approximately 21 acres. Therefore, the Project has a total acreage of 104.45 acres; however, only 56.05 acres would be developable. The Project area is located in the City of Seal Beach and falls within the Seal Beach and Los Alamitos United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles. In addition, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and the proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are include within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA allocation. The ORCC Specific Plan Project covers a land area of approximately 155 acres, 4 acres of which is proposed for the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. The ORCC Specific Plan Project is subject to its own discretionary review and is being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, impacts would be less than significant. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-2 The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and there would be no impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means and there would be no impact. The Project would not 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 native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and there would be no impact. Due to the existing nature of the ORCC Specific Plan Project site as a golf course, the site could provide suitable habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in increased development at the site and would change the existing character of the site. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting The Project area is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, California, and is comprised of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area which total approximately 104.45 acres. In addition, as described above, the ORCC Specific Plan Project covers a land area of approximately 155 acres, 4 acres of which is proposed for development with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Appendix C, Figure 1 shows the Project Location Overview. Average summer high temperatures are approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF), average winter low temperatures are approximately 55ºF, and annual precipitation averages 12.26 inches (U.S. Climate Data 2024). Portions of the Project area are located within the Coastal Zone and regulated by the California Coastal Act. Development and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are therefore subject to review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City of Seal Beach is in the process of developing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) which will implement the Coastal Act at the local level. The western edge of the City of Seal Beach, including areas directly adjacent to portions of the Project area, includes shoreline, beaches, and marinas which support areas of biological diversity. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh located at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge includes habitats that are II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-3 essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, which includes federal- and state-listed species. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for perpetuation of two endangered species, the light-footed Ridgeway’s rail, and the California least tern, and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds (USFWS 2024c). Other species of concern found in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge include the Eastern Pacific green sea turtle, Belding’s savannah sparrow, and other year-round species including ospreys, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, brown pelicans, crabs, and snails. There are several winter migration species as well, including Canada, snow, and Ross’ geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, American avocet, black-bellies plover, and least and western sandpipers. Additionally, many California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, may also be small rays and sharks within the protected waters of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2024c). In addition, the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located within the City which includes approximately 503 acres of publicly and privately owned open space in the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach that were historically part of a much larger tidal estuarine system at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. In its current state, the Los Cerritos Wetlands consists mostly of degraded tidal and non-tidal salt march habitats behind levees and weedy uplands where tidal marshes were filed over the last 100 plus years (LCWA 2021). Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation communities and other land cover types within the Project area were determined based on review of aerial imagery and are presented below. No vegetation communities classified in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) are present within the Project area. All areas are categorized as land cover types. Land Cover Types Ruderal Herbaceous Ruderal herbaceous vegetation is generally comprised of non-native or naturalized species that populate previously disturbed areas. Common ruderal species include bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), giant reed (Arundo donax), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Maltese star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis), black mustard (Brassica nigrea), and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana); this is the dominant land cover type in all areas not falling under the disturbed/developed cover type (see below). Disturbed/Developed The disturbed or developed land cover type includes City parks, recreational vehicle storage, a golf course, commercial buildings, paved or graded roadways, concrete pads, and landscaped areas. The vegetated areas within this land cover type primarily contain ornamental planters, such as within residential yards and landscaped areas. These areas are generally periodically maintained for weed control, precluding any significant growth of non-ornamental species, but may be sparsely interspersed with ruderal pioneer plant species that readily colonize open disturbed soil. These include bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), castor bean (Ricinus communis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), shortpod II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-4 mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and non-native grasses. This land cover type is present on all the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. Common Wildlife Terrestrial Invertebrates As in all ecological systems, invertebrates inhabiting the Project area play a crucial role in several biological processes. They serve as the primary or secondary food sources for a variety of bird, reptile, and mammal predators; they provide important pollination vectors for numerous plant species; they act as components in controlling pest populations; and they support the naturally occurring maintenance of an area by consuming detritus and contributing to necessary soil nutrients. Though heavily urbanized, habitat conditions within the Project area provide a suite of microhabitat conditions for a wide variety of terrestrial insects and other invertebrates that are known to adapt to such disturbance. A focused insect survey was not performed within the Project area; however, a variety of common insects are expected to be present within the Project area. Fish There is no flowing water identified within the Project area; therefore, there is no potential for fish in the Project area. However, there may be fish in the surrounding areas. Amphibians Amphibians often require a source of standing or flowing water to complete their life cycle. However, some terrestrial species can survive in drier areas by remaining in moist environments found beneath leaf litter and fallen logs, or by burrowing into the soil. These species are highly cryptic and often difficult to detect. Downed logs, bark, and other woody material in various stages of decay (often referred to as coarse woody debris), which is generally not present within the Project area, could provide shelter and feeding sites for a variety of wildlife, including amphibians and reptiles (Aubry et al. 1988; Maser and Trappe 1984). Species known to occur in the area include the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus), Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypocondriaca), and garden slender salamander (Batrachoseps major major). Reptiles The number and type of reptile species that may occur at a given site is related to several biotic and abiotic features. These include the diversity of plant communities, substrates, soil types, and presence of refugia such as rock piles, boulders, and native debris. Many reptile species, even if present, are difficult to detect because they are cryptic and their life history characteristics (e.g., foraging, thermoregulatory behavior, fossorial nature, camouflage) limit their ability to be observed during most surveys. Further, many species are only active within relatively narrow thermal limits, avoiding both cold and hot conditions, and most species take refuge in microhabitats that are not directly visible to the casual observer, such as II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-5 rodent burrows, in crevices, under rocks and boards, and in dense vegetation, where they are protected from unsuitable environmental conditions and predators (USACE and CDFG 2010). In some cases, they are only observed when flushed from their refugia. Weather conditions during the survey were favorable for reptile activity. Common reptiles are known to occur in the area include the red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and California king snake (Lampropeltis californiae). Although the Project area does not contain suitable habitat for these species, there is potential for them to be present in areas adjacent to the Project. A small population of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are present near the mouth of San Gabriel River; however, this species requires shallow coastal waters and open ocean, which is not present within the Project area (NOAA 2024). Birds It is possible that many birds use the Project area at different periods, either as wintering habitat, seasonal breeding, or as occasional migrants. Suitable habitat conditions for several common birds known to occur in the region. Species that may be expected to occur include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn owl (Tyto alba), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), California gull (Larus californicus), western gull (Larus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and black-crowned heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). Mammals Generally, the distribution of mammals on a given site is associated with the presence of factors such as access to perennial water, topographical and structural components (e.g., rock piles, vegetation) that provide cover and support prey base, and the presence of suitable soils for fossorial mammals (e.g., sandy areas). Common mammals habituated to urban environments may move through the Project area, including striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), domestic species such as cats (Felis cattus), and various rodent species. Bats likely forage and roost in the region, particularly along riparian corridors. Many bats tend to concentrate foraging activities in riparian habitats similar to those occurring adjacent to the Project area where insect abundance is high. Aquatic Resources Coastal Zone There are four key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California, including the coastal zone: the USACE Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities under the FGC Sections 1600-1607; and the RWQCB II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-6 regulates activities under Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8, and the Main Street Program, fall within the Coastal Zone. Development within these areas will require coordination with CCC and a Coastal Development Permit for the Project, which would require that the Project adhere to the policies of the California Coastal Act. National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped a variety of wetland and water resources within and adjacent to the Project area (see Appendix C). These features include Estuarine and Marine Deepwater, Estuarine and Marine Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, and Riverine (USFWS 2024b). The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area. The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World. The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as part of this assessment. The Los Alamitos Channel is a known Waters of the United States (WOTUS) as it is a tributary to the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel Riber is also a WOTUS. Additionally, these areas would qualify as Waters of the State and CDFW jurisdictional waters. Special-Status Biological Resources Special-Status Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities are defined by CDFW (2018) as, “...communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” All vegetation is ranked with an “S” state rarity rank; however, only those that are of special concern (S1-S3 rank) are evaluated under CEQA. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search indicated that there are four sensitive vegetation communities within a 10-mile radius of the Project area: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. The Southern Dune Scrub has a state rank of S1/Critically imperiled, at very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Southern Foredunes has a state rank of S2/Imperiled, at high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest has a state rank of S3/Vulnerable, at moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-7 The Project area does not contain any of these sensitive natural communities. The Project area does occur within the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) but HCP is not relevant for the Project. Designated Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat is defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2020) as, “. . .a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but will be needed for its recovery.” There is no DCH within the Project area. The nearest DCH is for the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus), located approximately 3.3 miles southeast; and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the Project area (USFWS 2024a, USFW 2024c). Special-Status Plants Special-status plant species include those listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), taxa proposed for such listing, Species of Special Concern (SSC), California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR), and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area. Table 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2 summarize the special-status plant taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix C, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria: High: Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Moderate: Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area, or the immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area; the Project area is located within the known current distribution of the taxa and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Low: A historical record (over 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or general vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-8 Not Likely to Occur: The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. Table 3.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description red sand- verbena Abronia maritima -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dune habitats. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is February – October. chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal and desert dune habitats. Elevation range: 246 – 5,249 feet. Typical blooming period is January – September. aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb adapted to saline soils, found in sand or scrub along the immediate coast. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is in March – June. Horn’s milk- vetch Astragalus hornii var. hornii -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in lake margins, salty flats, meadows, seeps, and playas. Adapted to alkaline soils. Elevation range: 197 –. 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – September. Ventura marsh milk-vetch Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, marshes, and swamps (edges, coastal salt, or brackish); within reach of high tide or protected by barrier beaches; rarely occurs near seeps on sandy bluffs. Elevation range: 3 – 115 feet. Typical blooming period is August - October. Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, ocean bluffs, ridgetops, as well as alkaline low places. Occurs in alkaline, dry, or clay soils. Elevation range: 7– 1,509 feet. Typical blooming period is March to October. south coast saltscale Atriplex pacifica -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and playa habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March to October. Parish’s brittlescale Atriplex parishii -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in dry lake beds, playas, ephemeral vernal pools, and chenopod scrub habitats. Present in saline and alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 1,542 feet. Typical blooming period is June – October. Davidson’s saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, bluffs, chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pools from southern California to Baja California. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 656 feet. Typical blooming period is April – October. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-9 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Catalina mariposa lily Calochortus catalinae -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland habitats. Elevation range: below 2,297 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. Plummer’s mariposa lily Calochortus plummerae -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane forest, and valley and foothill grasslands. Occurs in granitic and rocky substrates. Elevation range: 328– 5,577 feet. Typical blooming period is May – July. intermediate mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius -- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands; typically in rocky, calcareous substrates. Elevation range: 345 – 2,805 feet. Typical blooming period is May – June. lucky morning- glory Calystegia felix -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb historically associated with wetland and marshy places, but possibly in drier situations as well. May occur in silty loam and alkaline soils in meadows and seeps, and riparian scrub habitats. Elevation range: 98 – 705 feet. Typical blooming period is March – September. Lewis’ evening- primrose Camissoniopsis lewisii -- / -- / 3 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal and dune habitats. Associated with coastal strand, coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis -- / -- / 1B.1 / Listed Annual herb the occurs on the margins of marshes and swamps, vernally mesic portions of valley and foothill grasslands, depressions, waterway banks and beds, open poorly drained flats, and disturbed area. Occurs in alkaline substrates. Elevation range: 0 – 1,575 feet. Typical blooming period is May – November. smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chenopod scrub; meadows and seeps; playas; riparian woodlands; valley and foothill grasslands; depressions; waterway banks and beds; open, poorly drained flats; and disturbed areas. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 295 – 1,640 feet. Typical blooming period is April – September. salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum FE / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal dune, marsh, and swamp habitats. Elevation range: 0-98 feet. Typical blooming period is May – October. seaside cistanthe Cistanthe maritima -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: 0 – 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. small-flowered morning-glory Convolvulus simulans -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in seeps. This species has a strong affinity for ultramafic substrates. Elevation range: 98 – 2,870 feet. Typical blooming period is March – July. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-10 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description many- stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis -- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Often occurs in clay soils. Elevation range: 49 – 2,592 feet. Typical blooming period is April-July. small spikerush Eleocharis parvula -- / -- / 4.3 / -- Perennial grass-like herb that occurs in salt marsh and coastal habitats. Elevation range: below 164 feet. Typical blooming period is July – August. San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual or perennial herb that occurs in vernal pools. Elevation range: below 2,313 feet. Typical blooming period is April – June. Los Angeles sunflower Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii -- / -- / 1A / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that historically occurred in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties; however, it is presumed to be extinct. It occurred in salt or freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation range: 33 – 5,003 feet. Typical blooming period is August – October. vernal barley Hordeum intercedens -- / -- / 3.2 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in coastal dune, coastal scrub, saline flats and depressions in valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats. Elevation range: 16 – 3,280 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. decumbent goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats, and disturbed areas. Occurs in sandy soils. Elevation range: 3 – 3,002 feet. Typical blooming period is April – November. Southern California black walnut Juglans californica -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Elevation range: 164 – 2,953 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial grass-like herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in seeps, meadows, salt marshes, and dune coastal habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – June. Coulter’s goldenfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal salt marshes and swamps, playas, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Usually found in clay and alkaline soils. Elevation range: 3 – 4,511 feet. Typical blooming period is February – June. California box- thorn Lycium californicum -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub found in coastal sage scrub communities. Elevation range: below 492 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. mud nama Nama stenocarpa -- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, lake shores, riverbanks, and other intermittently wet areas. Elevation range: 16 – 1. Typical blooming period is January – July. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-11 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Gambel’s water cress Nasturtium gambelii FE / ST / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps. Elevation range: 16 – 1,083 feet. Typical blooming period is April – October. prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and meadow and seep habitats. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 10 – 4,052 feet. Typical blooming period is April – June. coast woolly- heads Nemacaulis denudate var. denudate -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs on coastal dunes and beaches. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in large and deep vernal pools, typically with clay soils and an impervious subsurface layer. Elevation range: 49 – 2,165 feet. Typical blooming period is April -August. Lyon’s pentachaeta Pentachaeta lyonia -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral openings, and valley and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation range: 98 – 2,264 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. south coast branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis -- / -- / 3.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in wetland below 12,467 feet in elevation. Typical blooming period is March – August. Brand’s star phacelia Phacelia stellaris -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs on bluffs and slopes in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and coastal bluff scrub habitats. Occurs in sandy or clay soils. Elevation range: 3 - 1,312 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in riparian habitats in foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: below 4,265 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. Sanford’s arrowhead Sagittaria sanfordii -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater marsh habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – October. salt spring checkerbloom Sidalcea neomexicana -- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in playa, chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and Mojavean desert scrub habitats. Also occurs in alkali springs and marshes. Elevation range: 49 – 5,020 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. estuary seablite Suaeda esteroa -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, including coastal salt marshes. Occurs in clay, silt, and sand substrates. Elevation range: 0 – 262 feet. Typical blooming period is July – October. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-12 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description woolly seablite Suaeda taxifolia -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in salt marsh habitats on the edges of coastal sage scrub and wetland riparian communities. Elevation range: below 49 feet. Typical blooming period is January – December. San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in meadow and seep, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, marsh and swamp, and valley foothill grassland habitats. Generally found in vernally mesic grassland habitats near ditches, streams, and springs. May also occur in disturbed areas. Elevation range: 10 – 6,709 feet. Typical blooming period is July – November. General References: USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024). CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 8-quad search (accessed January 2024) Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (accessed 2024) Status Codes: No Status (--) Federal Federal Endangered (FE) Federal Threatened (FT) Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE) Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT) Federal Candidate (FC) State State Endangered (SE) State Threatened (ST) State Candidate (SC) State Rare (SR) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere (Rank 1B); Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere (Rank 2); Plants that about which more information is needed (Rank 3); A watch list plant of limited distribution (Rank 4) Threat Code: Seriously endangered in California (≥80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) (.1); Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) (.2); Not very endangered I California (≤20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) (.3). Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP Listed II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-13 Table 3.3-2: Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program red-sand verbena N N N N N N N N N chaparral sand-verbena N N N N N N N N N aphanisma N N N N N N N N N Horn’s milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N Ventura marsh milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N Coulter’s saltbush N N N N N N N L N south coast saltscale N N N N N N N N N Parish’s brittlescale N N N N N N N N N Davidson’s saltscale N N N N N N N N N Catalina marisposa lily N N N N N N N N N Plummer’s mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N intermediate mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N lucky morning-glory N N N N N N N N N - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ I I I I I I I l I l _J II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-14 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program Lewis’ evening-primrose N N N N N N N N N southern tarplant N N N N N N N L N smooth tarplant N N N N N N N N N salt-march birds’s beak N N N N N N N N N seaside cistanthe N N N N N N N N N small-flowered morning-glory N N N N N N N N N many-stemmed dudleya N N N N N N N N N small spikerush N N N N N N N N N San Diego button-celery N N N N N N N N N Los Angeles sunflower N N N N N N N N N vernal barley N N N N N N N N N decumbent goldenbush N N N N N N N N N Southern California black walnut N N N N N N N N N southwestern spiny rush N N N N N N N N N Coulter’s goldenfields N N N N N N N L N California box-thorn N N N N N N N N N II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-15 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program mud nama N N N N N N N N N Gambel’s water cress N N N N N N N N N prostrate vernal pool navarretia N N N N N N N N N coasty woolly-heads N N N N N N N N N California Orcutt grass N N N N N N N N N Lyon’s pentachaeta N N N N N N N N N south coast branching phacelia N N N N N N N N N Brand’s star phacelia N N N N N N N N N Engelmann oak N N N N N N N N N Sanford’s arrowhead N N N N N N N N N salt spring checkerbloom N N N N N N N N N estuary seablite N N N N N N N N N woolly seablite N N N N N N N N N San Bernardino aster N N N N N N N N N II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-16 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program High (H): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Moderate (M): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area, or the immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area; the Project area is located within the known current distribution of the taxa and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Low (L): A historical record (over 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or general vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area. Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-17 Special-Status Wildlife Special-status wildlife include those listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA or CESA, taxa proposed for such listing, SSC, and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area. Table 3.3-3 and Table 3.3-4 summarize the special-status wildlife taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix C, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria: High: Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known occurrence occurs within the Project area or adjacent areas (within 5 miles of the Project area) within the past 20 years; however, these taxa were not detected during the most recent surveys. Moderate: Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known regional record occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the Project area or within the past 20 years; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the Project area and within the past 20 years and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite; or the taxa’s range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists. Low: Limited habitat for the taxa occurs within the Project area and no known occurrences were found within the database search and the taxa’s range includes the geographic area. Not Likely to Occur: The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. Table 3.3-3: Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor -- / ST / SSC / -- Highly colonial species, most numerous in the Central Valley and vicinity, and largely endemic to California. Breeds near freshwater, preferably in emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs. Forages in grassland and cropland habitats with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony. They are itinerant breeders, nesting more than once at different locations during the breeding season. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-18 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi -- / -- / SSC / -- Generally, south of the transverse range, extending to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi and Piute mountains in Kern County. Variety of habitats; generally, in moist, loose soil. They prefer soils with a high moisture content. orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra -- / -- / WL / Listed Found in sage scrub and chaparral habitats. burrowing owl Athene cunicularia -- / -- / SSC / -- Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel. Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii -- / -- / SA / -- Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE / -- /-- / -- Restricted to vernal pools in coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis -- / -- / WL / -- Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon and juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles. Swainson’s hawk Buteo swaisoni -- / ST / -- / -- Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis -- / -- / SSC / Listed Southern California coastal sage scrub. Wrens require tall cactus for nesting and roosting. western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT / -- / SSC / -- Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly, or friable soils for nesting. green turtle Chelonia mydas FT / -- / -- / -- Usually occur in relatively shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. Occur in lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-19 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT / SE / -- / -- Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian forests of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with well-developed understories of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. monarch – California overwintering population Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 FC / -- / -- / -- Inhabitant of coastal sand dune habitat; erratically distributed from Ten Mile creek in Mendocino County south to Ensenada, Mexico. Inhabits foredunes and sand hummocks; it burrows beneath the sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation. Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Larvae require the host plant, (Asclepias ssp.) for development. southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE / SE / -- / Listed Breeds in dense riparian areas associated with nearby rivers, swamps, and wetlands. western pond turtle Emys marmorata FPT / -- / SSC / Listed A thoroughly aquatic turtle of small ponds and lakes, marshes, permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds, reservoirs, treatment lagoons, irrigation ditches, and slow-moving permanent or intermittent rivers, streams, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Abundant cover necessary including logs, rocks, and submerged vegetation. western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus -- / -- / SSC / -- Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, bridges, trees, and tunnels. In California, most records are from rocky areas at low elevations. quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas Editha quino FE / -- / -- / -- Native to southern California and northwestern Mexico. Occurs in localized colonies closely associated with the high densities of larval food plant, Plantago erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurescens. Adults use several chaparral annual flowers for food. Six known populations in southwestern Riverside and San Diego counties and at least one population near Tecate, Mexico. Associated with sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage shrublands hills and mesas near the coast. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-20 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Arroyo chub Gila orcuttii -- / -- / SSC / Listed Found in habitats characterized by slow- moving water, mud or sand substrate, and depths greater than 40 cm. Most abundant in low gradient pools that support at least some aquatic vegetation. Palos Verdes blue butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis FE / -- / -- / -- Dependent on two known larval host plants, Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus)—also known as locoweed—and common deerweed (Acmispon glaber) within coastal scrub habitat. Known only from Palos Verdes peninsula. western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus -- / -- / SSC / -- Primarily roost in trees hanging from the underside of leaves. Commonly found in riparian woodland habitat with dead fronds of non-native palms (for roosting). California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. coturniculus -- / ST / FP / -- Nests in wet meadows, shallow freshwater marshes, and the shallower or drier portions of salt marshes. Winters in shallow coastal and interior marshes the do not freeze. Occasionally found in rice fields. Does not migrate. bobcat Lynx rufus -- / -- / -- / Listed Common throughout the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico. Preferred habitats include dense chaparral, low and mid elevation conifer, oak, pinyon- juniper woodlands, riparian, and desert environments. south coast marsh vole Microtus californicus -- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in areas of tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and southern Ventura counties. big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis -- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in low-lying arid areas in southern California. Prefers rugged, rocky terrain. Often forages over water sources. Roosts in buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees. Also roosts in crevices in high cliffs or rock outcrops. steelhead – southern California Distinct Population Segement (DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 FE / -- / -- / -- Inhabits seasonally accessible rivers and streams with gravel for spawning. Requires sufficient flows in their natal streams to be able to return from oceans and lakes to spawn. Federal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria River south to southern extent of range (San Mateo Creek in San Diego County). Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerance to warmer water and more variable conditions. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-21 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi -- / SE / -- / -- Locally common non-migratory resident of coastal saltmarsh. An obligate breeder in middle elevation saltmarsh, nearly always characterized by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), either in tidal situations or non-tidal alkaline flats nearby. Foraging primarily stems from saltmarsh and mudflat, individuals, particularly post-breeding birds, can be found foraging in a wide variety of habitats including upper marsh, adjacent ruderal and ornamental vegetation, open beach and mudflat, and even dirt and gravel parking lots. Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus FE / -- / SSC / -- An obligate resident of fine-grained sandy soils of coastal strand, coastal dunes, river and marine alluvium, and coastal sage scrub near the ocean and has never been collected more than 2 miles from the coast. Occurrences are closely associated with loose or friable soils that permit burrowing. short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus FE / -- / SSC / -- Located on remote islands of the western Pacific. coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii -- / -- / SSC / Listed Primarily in sandy soil in open areas, especially sandy washes and floodplains, in many plant communities. Requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and an abundant supply of ants or other insects. Main prey item is harvester ants. Occurs west of the deserts from northern Baja California, Mexico, north to Shasta County below 2,400 meters elevation. coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FE / -- / SSC / Listed Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 feet in southern California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes and on mesas and slopes with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) as a dominant or co-dominant species. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis FE / -- / -- / -- Endemic to Hawaii. light-footed Ridgway’s rail Rallus obsoletus levipes FE / SE / FP / -- Found in salt marshes where cordgrass and pickleweed are the dominant vegetation. Requires dense growth of either pickleweed or cordgrass for nesting or escape cover, feeds on mollusks and crustaceans. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-22 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description bank swallow Riparia riparia -- / ST / -- / -- Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine- textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Forage in open areas and avoid places with tree cover. black skimmer Rynchops niger -- / -- / SSC / -- Open sandy beaches, on gravel or shell bars with sparse vegetation, or on mats of sea wrack (tide-stranded debris) in saltmarsh. Occasionally seen at inland lakes such as the Salton Sea of California. Much of this species' original beach habitat has been developed as houses and attractions for beachgoers. Particularly in the southeastern U.S., artificial islands made from dredge spoils are an important nesting habitat for this and other species. yellow warbler Setophaga petechia -- / -- / SSC / -- Thickets and other disturbed or regrowing habitats, particularly along streams and wetlands. Often found in willow thickets, dwarf birch stands, aspen trees, and along the edges of fields. May occur up to 9,000 feet in elevation. Overwinter in dry scrub, marshes, and forests of lowlands. southern California saltmarsh shrew Sorex ornatus salicornicus -- / -- / SSC / -- Coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties. Requires dense vegetation and woody debris for cover. western spadefoot Spea hammondii -- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills and the non-desert areas of southern California and Baja California, Mexico. Grassland habitats, valley-foothill hardwood woodlands, and coastal sage scrub. Vernal pools and other temporary rain pools, cattle tanks, and occasionally pools of intermittent streams are essential for breeding and egg- laying. Burrows in loose soils during dry season. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-23 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE / SE / FP / -- Nests on sandy upper ocean beaches, open barren sites, and occasionally uses mudflats. Forages on adjacent surf line, estuaries, or the open ocean where fish is abundant. Colonies are located near the ocean shoreline (within 0.5 mile [about 800 meters]), typically on nearly flat, loose sandy substrates with lightly scattered short vegetation and debris, although some colonies have been located on hard-packed surfaces, even unused asphalt. Colony sites must provide access to the shoreline for juveniles and must be relatively free of predators or the colony may abandon breeding efforts before completion. Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE / -- / -- / -- Restricted to vernal pools and other non- vegetated ephemeral pools in inland areas of Riverside County, Orange County, and the vicinity of Ramona, San Diego County; and coastal areas of San Diego County and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE / SE / -- / Listed Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 feet. Often inhabits structurally diverse woodlands along watercourses including cottonwood-willow and oak woodlands and mulefat scrub. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, mulefat, or mesquite. General References: USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile search centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024). Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (Accessed 2024) Status Codes: No status (--) Federal Federal Endangered (FE) Federal Threatened (FT) Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE) Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT) Federal Candidate (FC) State State Endangered (SE) State Threatened (ST) State Candidate (SC) State Fully Protected Species (FP) CDFW California Special Concern Species (SSC) Included in CDFW “Watch List” (WL) Critically Imperiled (S1) Imperiled (S2) Vulnerable (S3) Apparently Secure (S4) Unranked (SNR) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP Listed II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-24 Table 3.3-4: Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program tricolored blackbird N N N N N N N N N southern California legless lizard N N N N N N N H N orange-throated whiptail N N N N N N N N N burrowing owl N N N N N N N N N Crotch bumble bee N N N N N N N H (foraging) H (nesting) N San Diego fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N ferruginous hawk N N N N N N N M (foraging) M (nesting) N II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-25 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program Swainson’s hawk N N N N N N N M (foraging) M (nesting) N coastal cactus wren N N N N N N N N N western snowy plover N N N N N N N N N green turtle N N N N N N N N N western yellow-billed cuckoo N N N N N N N N N monarch – California overwintering population N N N N N N N M (adults) L (larva) N southwestern willow flycatcher N N N N N N N N N western pond turtle N N N N N N N N N western mastiff bat N N N N N N N N N quino checkerspot butterfly N N N N N N N N N Arroyo chub N N N N N N N N N II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-26 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program Palos Verdes blue butterfly N N N N N N N N N western yellow bat N N N N N N N N N California black rail N N N N N N N N N bobcat N N N N N N N N N south coast marsh vole N N N N N N N N N big free-tailed bat N N N N N N N N N steelhead – southern California DPS N N N N N N N N N Belding’s savannah sparrow N N N N N N N H (foraging) H (nesting) N Pacific pocket mouse N N N N N N N N N short-tailed albatross N N N N N N N N N coast horned lizard N N N N N N N N N II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-27 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program coastal California gnatcatcher N N N N N N N N N Hawaiian petrel N N N N N N N N N light-footed Ridgeway’s rail N N N N N N N N N bank swallow N N N N N N N N N black skimmer N N N N N N N N N yellow warbler N N N N N N N N N southern California saltmarsh shrew N N N N N N N N N western spadefoot N N N N N N N N N California least tern N N N N N N N N N Riverside fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N least Bell’s vireo N N N N N N N N N - ' - ~ ' - ~ ' ~ - I I I I I I I I I _J II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-28 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program High (H): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known occurrence occurs within the Project area or adjacent areas (within 5 miles of the Project area) within the past 20 years; however, these taxa were not detected during the most recent surveys. Moderate (M): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known regional record occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the Project area or within the past 20 years; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the Project area and within the past 20 years and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite; or the taxa’s range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists. Low (L): Limited habitat for the taxa occurs within the Project area and no known occurrences were found within the database search and the taxa’s range includes the geographic area. Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. - I I I I I I I I I I J II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-29 Wildlife Corridors and Special Linkages Linkages and corridors facilitate regional animal movement and are generally centered in or around waterways, riparian corridors, flood control channels, contiguous habitat, and upland habitat. Drainages generally serve as movement corridors because wildlife can move easily through these areas, and fresh water is available. Corridors also offer wildlife unobstructed terrain for foraging and for dispersal of young individuals. As the movements of wildlife species are more intensively studied using radio-tracking devices, there is mounting evidence that some wildlife species do not necessarily restrict their movements to some obvious landscape element, such as a riparian corridor. For example, recent radio-tracking and tagging studies of Coast Range newts, California red-legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, and two-striped garter snakes found that long-distance dispersal involved radial or perpendicular movements away from a water source with little regard to the orientation of the assumed riparian “movement corridor” (Bulger et al. 2002; Hunt 1993; Ramirez 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Rathbun et al. 1992; Trenham 2002). Likewise, carnivores do not necessarily use riparian corridors as movement corridors, frequently moving overland in a straight line between two points when traversing large distances (Beier 1993, 1995; Newmark 1995; Noss et al. 1996, n.d.). In general, the following corridor functions can be utilized when evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors: Movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between patches of suitable habitat. Simberloff et al. (1992) and Beier and Loe (1992) correctly state that for most species, we do not know what corridor traits (length, width, adjacent land use, etc.) are required for a corridor to be useful. But, as Beier and Loe (1992) also note, the critical features of a movement corridor may not be its physical traits but rather how well a particular piece of land fulfills several functions, including allowing dispersal, plant propagation, genetic interchange, and recolonization following local extirpation. Dispersal corridors are relatively narrow, linear landscape features embedded in a dissimilar matrix that link two or more areas of suitable habitat that would otherwise be fragmented and isolated from one another by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human-altered environments. Corridors of habitat are essential to the local and regional population dynamics of a species because they provide physical links for genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Habitat linkages are broader connections between two or more habitat areas. This term is commonly used as a synonym for a wildlife corridor (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Habitat linkages may themselves serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-size animals. Travel routes are usually landscape features, such as ridgelines, drainages, canyons, or riparian corridors, within larger natural habitat areas that are frequently used by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to water, food, cover, den sites, and other necessary resources. A travel route is generally preferred by a species because it provides the least amount of II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-30 topographic resistance in moving from one area to another yet still provides adequate food, water, or cover (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Wildlife crossings are small, narrow areas of limited extent that allow wildlife to bypass an obstacle or barrier. Crossings typically are human-made and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, bridges, tunnels to provide access past roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Wildlife crossings often represent “choke points” along a movement corridor because unseable habitat is physically constricted at the crossing by human-induced changes to the surrounding areas (Meffee and Carroll 1997). Wildlife Movement in the Project Area The Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. These are comprised of shopping centers and paved parking lots, fenced parks, disturbed open space, and a golf course. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement including buildings, fences, and multi-lane roadways. These areas may harbor common species habituated to life in urban environments such as Virginia opossum, raccoon, desert cottontail, California ground squirrel, coyote, various birds, and small rodents. In addition, the Project area is within the Pacific Flyway, a major north- south flyway for migratory birds in America, extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Each year, at least one billion birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway (Audubon 2024). Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the sites, the sites do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. The Project area does not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage as identified by the Wildlands Network (2024). 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of legislative acts. The following section summarizes the federal, state, and local regulations for special-status species, jurisdiction over waters of the United States and State of California, and sensitive biological resources. This section provides a listing and overview of these federal and state laws; only select regulations are applicable to the Project. Federal Federal Endangered Species Act FESA provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful “take” and ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of DCH. Under FESA, take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-31 the specifically enumerated conduct.” The USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR Section 17.3). DCH is defined in FESA Section 3(5)(A) as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features: (I) essential to the conservation of the species; (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The effects analyses for DCH must consider the role of the critical habitat in both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS. Activities that may result in “take” of federally listed species are regulated by USFWS. USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December 6, 2007 (72 Federal Register [FR] 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under FESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during the environmental review process. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful to possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter or take any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of CFR Part 10. “Take” is defined as possession or destruction of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend may be a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, bird nests, and eggs. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 USC 668, enacted by 54 Stat. 250) protects bald and golden eagles by prohibiting the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds and establishes civil penalties for violation of this Act. Take of bald and golden eagles is defined as follows: “disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior’’ (72 FR 31132; 50 CFR 22.3). USFWS is the primary federal authority charged with the management of golden eagles in the United States. A permit for take of golden eagles, including take from disturbance such as loss of foraging habitat, may be required if the Project affects such resources. On November 10, 2009, the USFWS implemented new rules (74 FR 46835) governing the take of golden and bald eagles. The new rules were II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-32 released under the existing BGEPA, which has been the primary regulatory protection for unlisted eagle populations since 1940. All activities that may disturb or incidentally take an eagle or its nest as a result of an otherwise legal activity must be permitted by the USFWS under this act. The definition of disturb (72 FR 31132) includes interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior to the degree that it causes or is likely to cause decreased productivity or nest abandonment. If a permit is required, due to the current uncertainty on the status of golden eagle populations in the western United States, it is expected that permits would only be issued for safety emergencies or if conservation measures implemented in accordance with a permit would result in a reduction of ongoing take or a net take of zero. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1964, requires that all federal agencies consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), USFWS, and state wildlife agencies (i.e., CDFW) when proposed actions might result in modification of a natural stream or body of water. Federal agencies must consider effects that these projects would have on fish and wildlife development and provide for improvement of these resources. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act allows NMFS, USFWS, and CDFW to provide comments to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during review of projects under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (concerning the discharge of dredged materials into navigable WOTUS) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regarding obstructions in navigable waterways. NMFS comments provided under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are intended to reduce environmental impacts to migratory, estuarine, and marine fisheries and their habitats. Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 establishes national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zones. In accordance with Section 307(c) of the CZMA, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce of a state’s management program, any applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity in or outside of the coastal zone affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. The federal government certified the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) in 1977. The enforceable policies of that document are Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. For all of the California coast except San Francisco Bay, the state agency responsible for implementing the CZMA is the CCC. The CCC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal and federally licensed or permitted activities to assess their consistency with the approved CCMP. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated LCP and CCC jurisdiction. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8, and the Main Street Program area are within the Seal Beach LCP. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-33 Clean Water Act Section 404 and Federal Jurisdictional Waters The Clean Water Act (CWA), introduced in 1977 via amendatory legislation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is the primary federal law in the United States regulating water pollution. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged material, placement of fill material, or certain types of excavation within WOTUS and authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for such actions. Permits can be issued for individual projects (individual permits) or for general categories of projects (general permits). Terrestrial WOTUS as defined by the CWA have typically included rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters and any associated wetlands. Wetlands are defined by the CWA as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The USACE has adopted several revisions to their regulations to more clearly define WOTUS. The protection of federal jurisdictional WOTUS has been particularly contentious and subject to numerous legal decisions since 2001. 1986 Regulations In 1986, the federal agencies (USACE and USEPA) implemented historic regulations (the 1986 Regulations) that defined WOTUS to mean traditional navigable waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, interstate waters, and intrastate waters whose use or degradation could affect interstate or foreign commence, as well as tributaries of and wetlands adjacent to any of those waters. 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County Ruling Until the beginning of 2001, WOTUS included, among other things, isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that are not part of a tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable WOTUS. The jurisdictional extent of USACE regulation changed with the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ruling. The United States Supreme Court held that the USACE could not apply Section 404 of the CWA to extend their jurisdiction over an isolated quarry pit. The Court ruled that the CWA does not extend federal regulatory jurisdiction over non-navigable, isolated, intra-state waters. However, the Court made it clear that non-navigable wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are still subject to USACE jurisdiction. 2006 Rapanos Ruling In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). Justice Scalia narrowly interpreted the statutory term “waters of the United States” in a four- Justice plurality opinion, holding that CWA jurisdiction extended over only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” that are connected to TNWs, plus wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such relatively permanent water bodies. Justice Kennedy wrote separately, concurring with the Court’s judgment with respect to the facts of the case, but interpreted “waters of the United States” to include wetlands that possess a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-34 The Court’s split decision and lack of a commanding majority opinion in Rapanos created confusion among the federal agencies and public. In 2008, the federal agencies released a regulatory guidance document, the 2008 Rapanos Guidance (USACE and USEPA 2008) addressing common questions about federal jurisdiction over WOTUS and clarifying the two jurisdictional standards from Rapanos. In the 2008 Rapanos Guidance, the federal agencies concluded that federal jurisdiction existed over certain waterbodies that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard from Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard. 2015 Clean Water Act The 1986 Regulations as interpreted by the 2008 Rapanos Guidance were later replaced by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The federal agencies attempted to provide clarification on jurisdiction following the Rapanos ruling by replacing the numerous categories of waterbodies found in the 1986 Regulations with three broader categories: waters that are categorically “jurisdictional by rule” without the need for further analysis; waters that are subject to case-specific jurisdictional analysis; and waters that are categorically excluded from jurisdiction. The 2015 Clean Water Rule emphasized the “significant nexus” standard over the “relatively permanent” standard to include additional types of waters in the new “jurisdictional by rule” category. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, tributaries of these waters, and wetlands adjacent to these waters were all deemed “jurisdictional by rule.” The result of the 2015 Clean Water Rule was an expansion in federal jurisdiction over waterbodies that might have otherwise been excluded from the definition of WOTUS on a case-by-case basis under the 1986 Regulations and the Rapanos ruling. Federal jurisdictional WOTUS protected under the CWA were defined in a final 2015 Clean Water Rule; however, the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals issued an order staying the 2015 Rule nationwide, pending a determination by the court on jurisdiction to review the rule. The 2015 Clean Water Rule was stayed, and the prior 1986 Regulations published in 1986, along with some changes in 2008 as a result of the Rapanos ruling, remained in effect. 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule In 2017, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The executive order directed the federal agencies to review the 2015 Clean Water Rule for consistency with the policy outlined in Section 1 of the order and to issue a proposed rule rescinding or revising the 2015 Clean Water Rule as appropriate and consistent with law. The federal agencies repealed the 2015 Rule and restored the previous regulatory regime as it existed prior to finalization of the 2015 Clean Water Rule with, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’—Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules.” On January 23, 2020, the federal agencies issued the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) to redefine WOTUS. The agencies streamlined the definition to include four simple categories of jurisdictional waters: 1. Traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-35 2. Tributaries of traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; 3. Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of WOTUS; and 4. Wetlands adjacent to other WOTUS. The NWPR provided clear exclusions for many water features that traditionally have not been regulated, and defined terms in the regulatory text that had never been defined before. Congress, in the CWA, explicitly directed the federal agencies to protect “navigable waters.” The intent of the NWPR was to regulate waters and the core tributary systems that provide perennial or intermittent flow and excluded ephemeral waters. The final NWPR fulfilling Executive Order 13788 became effective on June 22, 2020; however, on August 30, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the NWPR finding ““fundamental, substantive flaws that cannot be cured without revising or replacing the NWPR’s definition.” 2023 Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” On June 9, 2021, the USACE and USEPA under the Biden Administration announced intent to protect more waterways through environmental regulations, beginning a new rulemaking process that restores protections put in place before 2015. Following the federal district court decision vacating the NWPR, USEPA and USACE halted implementation of the NWPR and began interpreting WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime, deciding that prompt replacement of the NWPR through the administrative rulemaking process was vital. On January 18, 2023, the federal agencies published the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule in the Federal Register and the rule became effective on March 20, 2023 (USACE and USEPA 2023). The 2023 Rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of WOTUS and exercises their discretion under the statute to return generally to the familiar pre-2015 definition that has bounded the CWA’s protections for decades. The implications of the final 2023 WOTUS rule are such that many ephemeral waters not considered protected under the former 2020 NWPR will now be protected. With the 2023 WOTUS rule, USEPA and USACE interpreted the term WOTUS to include: 1. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters; 2. Impoundments of other jurisdictional WOTUS; 3. Tributaries to either of the above waters, or when the tributaries meet the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard, (collectively, “jurisdictional tributaries”); 4. Wetlands adjacent to traditional waters, wetlands adjacent and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent tributaries and impoundments, and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional tributaries when those wetlands meet the “significant nexus” standard; and 5. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands as defined in 1–4 above that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-36 For purposes of characterizing a “jurisdictional adjacent wetland” under the 2023 WOTUS Rule, a wetland may be considered “adjacent” to WOTUS if any of the following three criteria are satisfied: 1. The wetland has an unbroken surface or shallow subsurface connection to WOTUS; 2. The wetland is physically separated from WOTUS by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, and the like; or 3. The wetland is reasonably proximate to WOTUS such that the wetland has significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem of WOTUS. 2023 Sackett Ruling On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett), which established a more stringent test to determine whether the CWA applies to certain categories of wetland. The Sackett family had backfilled a lot near Priest Lake in Idaho, and in agreeing that the Sacketts’ lot is a wetland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit applied the test outlined by Justice Kennedy in Rapanos: whether there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands and waters that are covered by the CWA, and whether the wetlands “significantly affect” the quality of those waters. With Sackett, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, where in a majority opinion, lower courts were directed to apply a more stringent test in Rapanos, in which the CWA applies to a particular wetland only if it blends or flows into a neighboring water that is a channel for interstate commerce. While the Court decided that it is clear that some “adjacent” wetlands will also qualify under the CWA as “waters of the United States,” wetlands that are entirely separate from traditional bodies of water will not qualify. The CWA will apply to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States” because they have a “continuous surface connection” with a larger body of water, “making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.” The result of the Sackett ruling is that certain adjacent wetlands formerly protected under the CWA will no longer be federally protected. The USACE and USEPA have acknowledged the Sackett ruling and indicated they will interpret the phrase “waters of the United States” consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. Amendment to the 2023 WOTUS Rule On August 29, 2023, the USEPA and USACE announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of WOTUS to conform with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett. While EPA’s and USACE’s 2023 WOTUS rule defining WOTUS was not directly before the Supreme Court, the decision in Sackett made clear that certain aspects of the WOTUS 2023 rule are invalid. The amendments issued are limited and change only parts of the 2023 rule that are invalid under the Sackett decision. For example, the final rule removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-37 Exemptions Under Clean Water Act Section 404 Activities that are exempt under CWA Section 404(f) include 1. Nominal farming, silviculture and ranching activities, 2. (Emergency) maintenance activities, 3. Construction and maintenance of farm ponds, stock ponds, or irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches, 4. Construction of temporary sedimentation basins, 5. Any activity with respect to which a state has an approved program under CWA Section 208(b)(4) which meets the requirements of sections 208(b)(4) (B) and (C) (this pertains to certain applicable statewide waste treatment management programs), and 6. Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment. Exceptions to these exemptions include: 1. Discharge of toxic pollutants, and 2. If it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of a WOTUS into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow and/or circulation of waters may be impaired or the reach of the waters reduced. Extent of Jurisdiction The extent of CWA Section 404 jurisdiction for non-tidal waters includes non-isolated aquatic features (including wetlands qualifying under the original federal 1986 standards and non-wetland WOTUS) bound by an “ordinary high water mark” as defined by 33 CFR 328.3(e): “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Features considered isolated from TNWs and the exemptions listed above are not considered WOTUS under the jurisdiction of CWA Section 404. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-38 State California Environmental Quality Act CEQA establishes state policy to prevent significant and avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by state lead agencies. Regulations for implementation are found in the CEQA Guidelines published by the California Natural Resources Agency. These guidelines establish an overall state of California process for the environmental evaluation of projects. California Endangered Species Act Provisions of the CESA protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., take is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). Additionally, the FGC contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (FGC Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], and 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or possessed. In addition to federal and state-listed species, the CDFW also has produced a list of SSC to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. SSC may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection. Birds of prey are protected in California under the FGC. FGC Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to ‘take’, possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to ‘take’, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the FGC, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-of-prey, taking, or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to FGC Section 3800 are prohibited. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 of the FGC requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility which proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or use materials from a streambed, or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake, to first notify the CDFW of the proposed project. Notification is generally required for any project that would take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-39 through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Based on the notification materials submitted, the CDFW would determine whether the proposed project may impact fish or wildlife resources. If the CDFW determines that a proposed project may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) would be required. A completed CEQA document must be submitted to CDFW before an LSAA would be issued. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the “discharge of waste” to “waters of the State”. All projects proposing to discharge waste that could affect Waters of the State must file a Waste Discharge Report with the appropriate RWQCB. The board responds to the report by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements or by waiving them for that project discharge. Both terms “discharge of waste” and Waters of the State are broadly defined such that discharges of waste include fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other “discharge.” Isolated wetlands within California, which are no longer considered Waters of the State, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, are addressed under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. State-Regulated Habitats The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency (together with the RWQCBs) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. The CDFW extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS-defined), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFW 1994). Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; that substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or that use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed may require that the proposed project applicant enter into an LSAA with the CDFW. Native Plant Protection Act Under FGC Sections 1900 to 1913, the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. a project applicant is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of the NPPA and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-40 California Native Plant Society Rare Plant program The mission of the CNPS Rare Plant Program is to develop current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of California’s rare and endangered plants and to use this information to promote science-based plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (e.g., listing status, habitat, distribution, threats, etc.) is entered into the online CNPS Rare Plant Inventory and given a CRPR. The Rare Plant Program currently recognizes more than 1,600 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered in California. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have a designated status under state endangered species legislation, are defined by the following CRPRs: CRPR 1A: Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere CRPR 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list In addition to the CRPR designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added onto the CRPR and designates the level of endangerment by a 0.1 to 0.3 ranking, with 0.1 being the most endangered and 0.3 being the least endangered and are described as follows: 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) 0.2: Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) 0.3: Not very threatened in California (low degree or immediacy of threats or no current threats known) California Coastal Commission and Coastal Act of 1976 The CCC has planning, regulatory, and permitting responsibilities in partnership with local governments over all development taking place within the coastal zone, a 1.5 million-acre area stretching 1,100 miles along the state’s coastline from Oregon to Mexico (and around nine offshore islands). The coastal zone extends seaward 3 miles, while its landward boundary varies from several miles inland in places such as the Eel River and the Elkhorn Slough, to as close as a few hundred feet from the shore in other areas. The CCC’s enabling legislation, the Coastal Act of 1976, created a comprehensive coastal protection program grounded in partnerships between CCC and local government jurisdictions (15 counties and 60 cities) within the coastal zone. Among the coastal resources specifically protected within the Coastal Act are public access to the coastline, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agriculture, II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-41 low-cost visitor-serving recreational uses, visual resources, commercial and recreational fishing, and community character. Coastal streams and wetlands are also protected under the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as: …lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The CCC’s regulations (CCR Title 14) establishes a “one parameter definition,” which requires evidence of a single parameter to establish wetland conditions: Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. (14 CCR Section 13577). The “one parameter” definition adopted by the Coastal Commission is based on the general definition used by USFWS and CDFW from the USFWS wetlands classification system first published in 1979 (Cowardin et al. 1979): Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The Coastal Act definition of a wetland does not distinguish between wetlands based on their quality. Therefore, under the Coastal Act, poorly functioning or degraded areas that meet the definition of wetlands are subject to wetland protection policies. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated LCP and CCC jurisdiction. The Project is within the Seal Beach LCP. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community but has grown into a small city within an urbanized region encompassing 11.5 square miles along the Pacific Coast. The City’s General Plan provides a comprehensive long-term plan for its character and physical development through appropriate goals, policies, and programs. Planning was formerly focused on expansion, but as much of Seal Beach is now developed, the focus for the future has evolved towards managing and enhancing development. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-42 The relevant component of the General Plan is the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element, which addresses the importance of the provision of recreation areas, preservation of natural resources, avoidance of development in hazardous areas; and the establishment of buffers between incompatible land uses (City of Seal Beach 2003). The purpose of the City’s Open Space / Recreation / Conservation Element is: To define open space and classify various types of open space uses. Describe those parcels or areas that are currently being used for open space/recreation and conservation purposes and discuss in concept future open space needs of the community. Determine methods to ensure that the present and future needs of the community are met. Open space is defined as land set aside for outdoor recreation; the preservation of natural resources; managed production of resources; or the safety and general welfare of the community. Recreation land is categorized as land developed for the use and enjoyment of the community, either as active land or passive land. Conservation land is land for the conservation, enhancement, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force; water quality; flood control; beach erosion; harbors; wildlife refuge; rivers; soils; forests; minerals; and other natural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003). Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 920-acres of salt marsh and upland habitat located within the boundaries of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. This wildlife refuge is one of the last remaining natural, undeveloped areas of coastal Southern California. In 1969, the wetlands were designated by the Navy Preserve and on August 30, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed Public Law 92-408, formally establishing the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. This National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the Department of the Navy and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Cerritos Wetland Authority The Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located within the City which includes approximately 503 acres of publicly and privately owned open space in the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach that were historically part of a much larger tidal estuarine system at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. In its current state, the Los Cerritos Wetlands consists mostly of degraded tidal and non-tidal salt march habitats behind levees and weedy uplands where tidal marshes were filed over the last 100 plus years (LCWA 2021). The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority is a governmental entity developed in 2006 by a joint powers agreement of the State Coastal Conservancy, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority was created for the purpose “to provide for a comprehensive program of acquisition, protection, conservation, restoration, maintenance and operation and environmental enhancement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands area consistent with the goals of flood protection, habitat protection and restoration, and improved water supply, water quality, groundwater recharge, and water conservation.” The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority has the ability to acquire and own real property, but it does not have the power of eminent domain. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-43 Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan The OCTA along with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CDFW, and USFWS worked together to create the Orange County Transportation Authority/California Department of Transportation NCCP/HCP in October 2009 with an amendment in 2016 (OCTA 2009). The planning area includes all of Orange County and this plan is meant to work with the existing Orange County planning efforts of the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP and the Southern Orange County HCP. The plan goals include: Provide for the management and conservation of specific covered species within the planning area; Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support the specific covered species within the planning area; Implement the covered activities in such a way that complies with state and federal fish and wildlife protection laws, including CESA and the FESA; Provide a basis for permits necessary to lawfully take specific covered species; Provide a way to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation requirements of FESA, NCCP, CEQA, and NEPA regarding the impacts of covered activities on the covered species within the planning area; Provide an accounting process that will document the net environmental benefits from the NCCP/HCP in exchange for streamlined and timely approval of permits for the Renewed Measure M freeway program; Provide a less costly, more efficient project review process that results in greater conservation values than project-by-project, species-by-species review; and Provide clear expectations and regulatory predictability for the entities carrying out covered activities within the planning area. 3.3.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant biological impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology The analysis below examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that may occur as a result of implementation of the Project. For the purpose of this assessment, project-related impacts take two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-44 species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals). The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability. Indirect impacts are those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or eventual habitation/operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites. The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on both the Project development and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. The biological values of resources within, adjacent to, and outside the area to be affected by the Project were determined by consideration of several factors, as applicable. These included the overall size of habitats to be affected, the previous land uses and disturbance history, the surrounding environment and regional context, the onsite biological diversity and abundance, the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species, the importance to regional populations of these species, and the degree to which onsite habitats are limited or restricted in distribution on a regional basis and, therefore, are considered sensitive in themselves. Therefore, the focus of this impact analysis is on sensitive plant communities/habitats, resources that play an important role in regional biological systems, and special-status species. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s biological resources impacts are significant. Would the Project: 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 USFWS. 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 USFWS. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-45 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 native wildlife nursery sites. Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species Impact BIO-1 The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impact Analysis Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Plants Based on a review of available database information, no state or federally listed and special-status plant species are known to occur within the Project impact areas. As identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report, Housing Opportunity Sites 1-7 and the Main Street Program area are entirely developed with urban uses and paved and therefore, does not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species. However, Housing Opportunity Site 8 includes undeveloped areas and two special-status plants, known to occur in the region, were determined to have a low potential to occur on Housing Opportunity Site 8; Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri [CRPR 1B.2]) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis [CRPR 1B.1 and OCTA NCCP/HCP Listed]). Direct impacts to listed or special-status plants would include, for example, trampling or crushing from heavy equipment, vehicles, or foot traffic, alterations to the native seed bank due to soil compaction, and modifications to existing hydrological conditions. Potential indirect impacts could include the disruption of native seed banks through soil alterations, the accumulation of fugitive dust, increased erosion and sediment transport, and the colonization of non-native, invasive plant species. If present during construction, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant species would be considered significant and require mitigation. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-46 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and BIO-2 would minimize impacts to special-status plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species and ensure that project design or avoidance mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to listed or special-status plants to a less than significant level. Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wildlife Project related impacts to state or federally listed and special-status wildlife species would be as follows: Special-Status Invertebrates and Reptiles The only Housing Opportunity Site identified to provide suitable habitat for special-status invertebrates and reptiles is Housing Opportunity Site 8. Due to the entirely developed nature of Housing Opportunity Sites 1-7 and the Main Street Program area, these sites were determined to not provide suitable habitat. Within Housing Opportunity Site 8, one special-status reptile, southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi [CDFW Species of Special Concern]) and one special-status invertebrate, Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii [State Candidate for Listing]) were determined to have a high potential to occur. Additionally, Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 [Federal Candidate and CDFW Special Animal]) was determined to have a moderate potential of occurrence for adults (overwintering) and a low potential for larvae depending on the presence of host plant (milkweed). Construction activities associated with future development projects facilitated by the Project could result in the direct loss of sensitive invertebrates and reptiles. Given the ecology of these species and cryptic nature, it is likely that some or all of the species may occur in or near the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. Direct impacts could result from potential mechanical crushing during construction, fugitive dust, and general disturbance due to increased human activity. Project implementation may also result in permanent loss of habitat. Therefore, to mitigate potential impacts from future development projects facilitated by the Project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires preparation of documentation of the status of special-status wildlife and plant species on the proposed development site and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires preparation of a Mitigation Plan if special-status wildlife and plant species are determined to occur onsite. Special-Status Birds Based on database reviews and knowledge of the area, both Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis [CDFW Watch List Species]) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swaisoni [State listed as Threatened]) were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within Housing Opportunity Site 8. Beldin’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi [State listed as Endangered]) was determined to have a high potential for occurrence within Housing Opportunity Site 8. Additionally, potential presence for bird species protected under the MBTA was identified for all Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area due to the potential for birds to nest in the trees that are dispersed throughout each site. Future development project activities facilitated by the Project have the potential to impact nesting birds. During the breeding season, construction activities could result in the displacement of breeding birds and II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-47 the abandonment of active nests. Potential indirect impacts could include the deterioration or removal of habitat, increased noise levels and human presence. If future development projects facilitated by the Project involve construction that were to occur during the avian nesting season (generally considered to be between February 15th through September 15th; although some raptors species may nest as early as January) indirect impacts to nesting birds could occur; the MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) does not allow for take of migratory birds. The MBTA makes it unlawful to possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter or “take” any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the CFR Part 10. “Take” is defined as possession or destruction of migratory birds, their nests or eggs. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend may be a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Future development project activities facilitated by the Project that result in the degradation to habitat for or the loss of endangered, threatened, or other special-status species would be considered a significant adverse impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been identified to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of applicable preconstruction surveys for construction activities that would occur during the nesting season and requires appropriate minimization measures be implemented if active nests are found within the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Specia- Status Mammals Based on a review of available database information, no special-status mammal species have been documented within Project impact areas nor were any determined to have the potential to occur within the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. As no special-status mammals were determined to occur within the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, future development projects facilitated by the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status mammals. As identified above, to reduce impacts to special-status wildlife and plant species, the City would be required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species and ensure that project design or avoidance mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require preconstruction surveys to evaluate potential nesting bird habitat onsite for future development projects, which would protect protected birds and reduce impacts to less than significant. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to special-status species to a less than significant level. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the Project included a 10 mile search radius of the City which includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project site. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-48 Freshwater ponds are identified to be located within the ORCC Specific Plan Project site due to its existing uses as a golf course. Plant species documented or determined to have the potential to occur within the ORCC Specific Plan Project site include Horn’s milk vetch. Wildlife specifies documented or determined to have the potential to occur within the ORCC Specific Plan Project site include the American bumble bee, ferruginous hawk, and western tidal-flat tiger beetle. Additionally, as the area is developed with existing golf course uses, the trees located within the ORCC Specific Plan Project site could provide suitable habitat for bird species. As the search radius for the Biological Resources Assessment included a 10 mile radius of the City, the ORCC Specific Plan Project site was included within the search radius for special-status plant and wildlife species. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all projects must provide documentation that the site does not include special- status or protected plant and wildlife species. If the species are found on the site, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance activities. The documentation shall ensure that botanical surveys are conducted during the appropriate blooming period and any nesting bird surveys are conducted during the appropriate avian nesting season. If no special-status species are found on the project site, no additional action is necessary and the project can continue. If special-status species are found, no ground disturbance can occur and the project must either avoid the special-status species, or develop a mitigation plan approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If offsite replacement is the only mitigation option available, the performance criteria shall be at a ratio specified by the resource agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. MM BIO-2: Mitigation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City, the USFWS, and CDFW which shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. MM BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit) for future development projects facilitated by the Project, project applicants shall complete a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations within the project site. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-49 biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, and the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the preconstruction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the City. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Riparian Habitat or Natural Communities Impact BIO-2 The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impact Analysis Sensitive natural communities are defined by CDFW (2018) as, “...communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” All vegetation is ranked with an “S” state rarity rank; however, only those that are of special concern (S1-S3 rank) are evaluated under CEQA. Based on database and aerial photography review the Project area does not contain any sensitive natural communities. The CNDDB records search indicated that there are four sensitive vegetation communities within a 10- mile radius of the Project area: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. The Southern Dune Scrub has a state rank of S1/Critically imperiled, at very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Southern Foredunes has a state rank of S2/Imperiled, at high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest has a state rank of S3/Vulnerable, at moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. As identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 of the Biological Resources Technical Report, though sensitive communities are identified within a 10-mile radius of the Project area, there are no sensitive natural communities located within any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. Additionally, as identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report, the entirety of Housing Opportunity Sites 1-7 and the Main Street Program area are developed. Housing Opportunity Site 8 is the only identified site that has undeveloped areas and the primary land cover at the Housing Opportunity II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-50 Site 8 is ruderal herbaceous with interspersed trees and disturbed/developed including a paved parking area and handball court. Though Housing Opportunity Site 8 provides some undeveloped areas, the site does not include any sensitive natural communities. Additionally, though all Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area contain trees that could be used as potential nesting habitat by bird species protected under the MBTA, the potential nesting habitat for birds do not constitute a sensitive natural community. Therefore, future development projects located within the any Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area are not anticipated to result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, there would be no impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is located on an existing golf course site and therefore, though it could be considered as undeveloped, the site includes freshwater ponds and landscaping regularly managed in accordance with the golf course use. Due to the existing uses and landscaping onsite, the ORCC Specific Plan Project site may or may not include riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No Impact. Protected Wetlands Impact BIO-3 The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impact Analysis A formal delineation of jurisdictional wetlands, other “waters of the U.S.,” Waters of the State, and CDFW jurisdictional waters was not conducted. However, the NWI has mapped a variety of wetland and water resources within and adjacent to the Project area (refer to the BRTR in Appendix C for a map of these resources). These features include Estuarine and Marine Deepwater, Estuarine and Marine Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, and Riverine (USFWS 2024b). The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area. The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-51 Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World. The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from each Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. The Los Alamitos Channel is a known WOTUS because it is a tributary to the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River is also a known WOTUS. Additionally, these areas would qualify as Waters of the State and CDFW jurisdictional waters. As the Los Alamitos Channel is located offsite of Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is separated from the site by a paved EVA access lane, future development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 is not anticipated to result in impacts to the Los Alamitos Channel. Additionally, the propensity of the Los Alamitos Channel to support special-status species and include wildlife habitat is limited as the Los Alamitos Channel is a concrete lined channel. As identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area contain any wetlands. Therefore, future development projects located within the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area would not result in adverse effects to protected wetlands and impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is located on an existing golf course site and the only aquatic features identified to occur within the ORCC Specific Plan Project site are freshwater ponds located throughout the golf course. The National Wetlands Inventory does not identify any wetlands to occur on the ORCC Specific Plan Project site. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No Impact. Migratory Wildlife Corridors Impact BIO-4 The Project would not 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 native wildlife nursery sites. Impact Analysis Wildlife Movement and Migratory Corridors Studies suggest that habitat fragmentation and isolation of natural areas ultimately results in the loss of native species within those communities (Soulé et al., 1988). The ability for wildlife to move freely among populations is important to long-term genetic variation and demography. Fragmentation and isolation of natural habitat may cause loss of native species diversity in fragmented habitats. In the short term, wildlife II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-52 movement may also be important to an animal’s ability to occupy home ranges, if a species range extends across a potential movement barrier. These considerations are especially important for rare, threatened, or endangered species, and wide-ranging species such as large mammals, which exist in low population densities. As identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report, the Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. These are comprised of shopping centers and paved parking lots, fenced parks, and disturbed open space. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement including buildings, fences, and multi-lane roadways. Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the sites, the sites do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area do not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage. There are no known bird or bat migratory corridors that would be directly impeded by the Project. Large concentrations of migrants are not known to utilize any specific portion of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area and Project activities are not expected to preclude use of the area. Migrating birds would have access to native habitat communities within adjacent areas. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of wildlife species or with a migratory wildlife corridor and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is located on an existing golf course site which is surrounded by existing urban development. The operation of the golf course and its location within the City would be anticipated to preclude use of the area as a wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site; however, as the site could provide some suitable habitat for wildlife onsite, it cannot be ruled out. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No Impact. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-53 Habitat Conservation Plan Impact BIO-5 The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impact Analysis The Orange County General Plan, City of Seal Beach General Plan, and OCTA/California Department of Transportation NCCP/HCP were all reviewed and the Project would not conflict with any of these plans or other City of Seal Beach ordinances, therefore there would be no impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not be anticipated to result in conflict with adopted conservation plans as buildout of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with the provisions of applicable conservation plans. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation No Impact. 3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative biological resources impacts includes the immediate project vicinity and the region. This geographic scope is appropriate for biological resources because it encompasses the mosaic of representative land cover and habitat types (and associated biological resources) affected by the Project. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.3-5 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to recreation and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-54 Table 3.3-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Biological Resources # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-55 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-56 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) future residential development 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and nearby areas, would increase development in ruderal and developed/disturbed areas and could result in impacts to biological resources. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area provide limited value as wildlife corridors due to their proximity to previous developments; however, some sites are in close proximity to natural areas, which could function as a wildlife corridor and could be impacted by future development. Therefore, potential biological impacts would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Though the City and majority of the surrounding areas are highly urbanized and disturbed, some cumulative developments identified in the table above may be located on sites that are less disturbed and could have the potential to provide habitat for wildlife. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary permit approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential biological resource impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the violation of biological resource requirements, the taking of special-status plants or wildlife, or degradation of wildlife corridors. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-57 3.3.5 References Aubry, K. B., L. L. C. Jones, and P. A. Hall. 1988. Use of woody debris by plethodontid salamanders in Douglas-fir in Washington. Pages 32-37 in R. C. Szabo, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America. General technical report RM-166. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Audubon. 2020. The Pacific Flyaway. http://www.audubon.org/pacific-flyway. Accessed January 2024. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology, 7: 94-108. Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440. Bulger, J., N. Scott, and R. Seymour. 2002. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red- legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands. Biol. Conservation 15: 234-245. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. RAREFIND database. January 2024 Electronic database managed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals, Species of Special Concern, Rare Plants, Sensitive Natural Communities. Wildlife Data and Habitat Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. _____. 2018. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. August. _____. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Sacramento, California. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed January 2024. County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. https://www.ocgov.com/gov/pw/cd/planning/generalplan2005.asp. Accessed January 2024. Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F., LaRoe, E. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hunt, L.E. 1993. Relocation and movements of southwestern pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata pallida), upper Santa Ynez River, Santa Barbara County, California. Prep. for the City of Santa Barbara and U.S. Forest Service. 135 pp. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-58 Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA). 2021. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Restoration Plan, May 26, 2021. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LCW-Restoration-Plan- Final-5_26_21.pdf. Accessed March 2025. Maser, C. and J.M. Trappe, tech eds. 1984. The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-164. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 56 p. Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, New York, NY. Newmark, W. 1995. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American national parks. Conservation Biology, 9: 512-526. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. Green Turtle. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/green-turtle. Accessed January 2024. Noss, R., P. Beier, and W. Shaw. n.d. Evaluation of the Coal Canyon biological corridor, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, California. Unpub. ms. 19 pp Noss, R., H. Quigley, M. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949-963. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2009. Orange County Transportation Authority/ California Department of Transportation Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=16025&inline. Accessed January 2024. Okin et al., 2001. Distribution of vegetation in wind-dominated landscapes: Implications for wind erosion modeling and landscape processes. Ramirez, R. 2003a. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) radio telemetry study, San Juan Creek, Orange County, California. Prep. for Rancho Mission Viejo LLC, San Juan Capistrano, CA. October. 64 pp. _____. 2003b. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) hydrogeomorphic habitat baseline analysis/radio telemetry study, Rancho Las Flores, San Bernardino County, CA. November. 110 pp. _____. 2002. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) radio telemetry and pitfall trapping studies, Little Horsethief Canyon, Summit Valley Ranch, San Bernardino County, California. Prep. for CALTRANS, Dept. of Transportation, San Bernardino, CA. April. 92 pp. Rathbun, G.N. Siepel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata). Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):319-324. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evens. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources 3.3-59 Sharifi et al., 1997. Surface Dust Impacts on Gas Exchange in Mojave Desert Shrubs. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(4): 837-846. Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: Conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6(4): 493-504. Soulé et al., 1988. Reconstructed Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral-Requiring Birds in Urban Habitat Islands. Conservation Biology 2(1). Trenham, P. 2002. Herpetologist, USGS. Conversation regarding dispersal movements of radio-tagged California newts (Taricha torosa) in Monterey County, California. June. United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game (USACE and CDFG). 2010. Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan Joint Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2000011025. USACE and USEPA. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. USACE and USEPA Memorandum. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016- 02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf. Accessed October 2024. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). IPaC: Home. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/data- download.html. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024c. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach. Accessed January 2024. II 3.4-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project. Included is a summary of applicable policies and regulations related to cultural resources and review of existing conditions. It also describes impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project, based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix D). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as identified in Section 15064.5; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts would be less than significant. The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 2 and CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant. The ORCC Specific Plan area is located directly north of the Naval Weapons Station across I-405 (a historic resource) and directly south of the Los Alamitos JFTB (a potential historic resource). The development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would change the visual character of the area adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station and Los Alamitos JFTB. Additionally, development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan would require excavation and earthmoving activities during construction which could have the potential to unearth buried archaeological deposits during development. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Precontact Archaeology Researchers divided the regional precontact chronology into four-stages describing changing artifact assemblages and evolving ecological adaptations. The principal regional chronology divides the precontact era by major cultural changes within general time periods. Wallace defined four cultural horizons, or periods, for Southern California. These include the Early Period, the Millingstone Period, the Intermediate Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period (Stantec 2024). These periods are summarized below. The Early Period covers the period between approximately 10,000 and approximately 5500 BC, although recent data from the Farpoint Site (CA-LAN-451) in Malibu indicates “Clovis Culture” occupation dating well before 10,000 years ago. Artifacts and cultural activities from Clovis and Early Period sites represent a predominantly hunting culture. Although Clovis and Early Period sites in Southern California are rare, several traits are characteristic of sites occupied during this period. This list includes locations on the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-2 shorelines of ancient lakes and marshes. In coastal areas, such sites are located along stream channels or near estuaries. Although the bow and arrow do not exist, the atlatl and dart have been identified in assemblages from this period. An array of specialized cobble, core, flake, and blade implements are also known. In certain areas, the presence of extremely large, often fluted bifaces marks the Clovis and Early Period. The Early Period is followed in time by the Millingstone Period. Sites from the Millingstone Period (post- 5500 BC) typically contain ground stone artifacts such as manos, metates, and cogged stones, as well as soapstone objects. Wallace suggests that Millingstone Period cultures were generally hunter-gatherers who spent much time collecting and processing plants. When bifaces are found on Millingstone Period sites, they are commonly large and associated with the use of the atlatl. Drover et al. (1983) suggest that early Millingstone Period sites represent refuse from mobile hunters and gatherers who used coastal resources during the winter and inland resources throughout the remainder of the year (Stantec 2024). Subsistence strategies included intensive hunting of small and large land mammals, sea mammals, and birds, as well as near-shore fishing and shellfish collecting. Elsewhere, small mammals were hunted and seeds were collected, as documented by the many millingstones found at Millingstone Period sites throughout the Southern California region. By 3000 BC, coastal populations began greater reliance on marine resources. The remains of near-shore and deep-sea fish appear more often as refuse in middens. Much further inland, populations centered around pluvial lakes created by runoff from melting glaciers. In coastal areas, there was an increased use of the mortar and pestle, which marked a technological change in the manner seeds were processed. Instead of using just mano and metate, smaller seeds could be better contained in the basket-like mortar or hopper mortar (a basket affixed with asphaltum to a mortar base), and it is possible that the mortar and pestle indicate a diversification in seed collecting strategy. The use of the mortar and pestle marks Wallace’s Intermediate Period. Additional artifacts found predominantly within the Intermediate Period include discoidals and crescentics (crescentically shaped flaked-stone artifacts). The Late Prehistoric Period begins at approximately AD 500. During this period, artifact changes and new cultural practices occur. Smaller projectile points, representing bow-and-arrow hunting, appear on Late Period sites. This period is also marked by steatite effigies and by cremation as an interment practice. These artifacts and practices have been linked to a proposed Shoshonean (Takic) immigration from the Great Basin that ended at the coast, although there is a difference of opinion among experts regarding the timing of this proposed Takic migration. By AD 1000, smoking pipes and ceramic pottery occur, although ceramic smoking pipes may occur somewhat earlier, within the later portion of the Intermediate Period. Dating of sites to the Late Period also depends on the occurrence of other items such as Salton Sea (Obsidian Buttes) obsidian. Sites within the region occasionally contain the vitreous lithic (glassy stone) called Grimes Canyon fused shale, which originates from Ventura County (Stantec 2024). History of Seal Beach The coastal area that officially became Seal Beach in 1915 was known as Anaheim Landing during the mid- to late-nineteenth century. After the gold rush, the Anaheim Landing Company established Anaheim Landing in 1857 in a small bay at the mouth of Anaheim Creek. The landing served as a port for the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-3 Santa Ana Valley. Anaheim Landing’s decline began in 1875 when the railroad arrived in Anaheim and provided a more efficient means to ship goods from the coast to inland settlements. Around this time, the beaches around Anaheim Landing became a popular destination for tourists seeking respite from hot summer days in the valley, and tent city, with 25 square foot lots, grew near the former Anaheim Landing site. In 1904, J.C. Ord, a Civil War veteran, hired a 30–mule team to bring his small general store building from Los Alamitos to Bay City, where he set it down at the southwest corner of what is now known as Main Street and Electric Avenue. In 1903, after successfully developing Huntington Beach, Phillip A. Stanton used his capital to form the Bayside Land Company, and with J.C. Ord and Isaac Lothian, developed Bay City just north of the former Anaheim Landing site. Stanton was the City’s major champion and heavily promoted Bay City. Bay City was officially incorporated on October 25, 1915, with the new name of Seal Beach. This name was derived from the many seals that lazed on the City’s beach, and the name change was necessary as there was already an incorporated community named Bay City. J.C. Ord was one of five trustees voted into office in October 1915, the second Mayor, Postmaster, and the first Judge. His store on Main Street was the Post Office and Court House, and the Jail House when it was necessary. Seal Beach also became home to the Joy Zone at the base of the pier, with a dance hall, cafe, bath house, and large wooden roller coaster, attracting a large volume of tourists and becoming known for being a little on the wild side. Seal Beach grew as a residential community during the 1920s. Between 1920 and 1930, the City’s population swelled from 669 to 1,156, and by 1931, various businesses lined Main Street, and scattered dwellings dotted the remaining streets. Businesses on Main Street included restaurants, a billiard hall, beauty shops, a tailor, the City post office, grocers, drug stores, a hotel, and an automotive repair store. During the 1930s, the development of Seal Beach stalled. The Great Depression and closure of the Joy Zone slowed all activity, and the 1933 Long Beach earthquake also impacted the community. The 6.4 magnitude quake, the largest known earthquake to occur in the Los Angeles region at that time, struck on the evening of March 10th and damaged or destroyed many of the buildings in Seal Beach. Collectively, the Depression, the 1933 earthquake, and the closure of offshore gambling establishments held the City’s development at bay, though it retained its sin city characterization for a while longer. World War II began a period of significant physical and social change in Seal Beach. In 1944, the Navy purchased most of the land around Anaheim Landing to construct the United States Navy's Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach for loading, unloading, and storing of ammunition for the Pacific Fleet. Today, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach is the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading, and maintenance installation. Located entirely within Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach is the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in 1972 and protects habitat for threatened and endangered species. The influx of new residents during the war, chiefly from the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach workforce, and a series of residential and commercial developments in the post-World War II period, began the transformation of Seal Beach into a middle-class seaside community, with a 129 percent IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-4 increase in Seal Beach’s population between 1940 and 1950. This growing population sought to dispel the City’s long-held ill reputation and create a more family-oriented community. A series of residential and commercial developments in the post-World War II period began the transformation of Seal Beach from a city known as “wild” to a middle-class seaside community. During the 1960s and 1970s, the City expanded from Old Town historic core to include Leisure World Seal Beach and the Marina Hill (also known as the Hill), College Park West, and College Park East subdivisions. Ross Cortese, a successful developer in Downey and Anaheim, established Leisure World Seal Beach, which would come to represent a third of Seal Beach’s population. In 1962, the first residents of Leisure World Seal Beach moved in, and by 1964, all original 6,608 planned units had been purchased (Stantec 2024). During the 1960s and 1970s, as the previously undeveloped portions of Seal Beach were platted and neighborhoods emerged, Old Town remained static in comparison. Storefronts were often boarded, and divey bars were still clustered near the pier. The western portion of Old Town, adjacent to the San Gabriel River, was mostly industrial in the 1960s and included a sewage disposal plant and oil separating facility. However, Old Town and its immediately adjacent neighborhood, the Hill, were not void of development. In 1966, the Seal Beach Shopping Center was constructed across the Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street in the Hill neighborhood. As Seal Beach approached the twenty-first century, the City had become a densely developed suburban community, outside of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, which continued to occupy the majority of the City, and provided a natural isolation from neighboring Huntington Beach and Westminster. Main Street outlived its racy reputation, and came to represent itself as the charming hub of an historic beach community, still with a hardware store, nursery, and post office, along with local restaurants, service businesses, and shops, while major property owner, The Bixby Ranch Company, sold its large landholdings in the northern end of town for development. 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting Federal National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, authorized the creation of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment (Title 36 CFR Part 60.2).” For a property to be considered eligible for the NRHP, it must typically be at least 50 years old and meet one or more of four criteria for evaluation set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-5 A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Title 36 CFR Part 60.4). A property must also be significant within a historic context under one or more of the criteria listed above. “National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” states that the significance of a historic property can be judged only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific...property or site is understood and its meaning...is made clear (Title 36 CFR Part 60.4).” A historic property must therefore represent an important aspect of history or prehistory. In addition to possessing significance, a property must possess integrity, defined by seven aspects: Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place. Design: the composition of elements that constitute the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place. Materials: the physical elements combined in a particular pattern or configuration. Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history. Feeling: the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. Association: the direct link between a property and the event or person for which the property is significant (Andrus and Shrimpton undated). State California Environmental Quality Act The state CEQA Guidelines set the standard for determining whether a proposed project will result in a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of historical resources in Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b), which states: IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-6 “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b]).” Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b)(1) further clarifies “substantial adverse change” as: “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][1]).” Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b)(2) in turn explains that a historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project: “Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][2]).” As a result, the test for determining if a proposed project will have a significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether the project will alter the physical integrity of the historical resource in an adverse manner such that it would no longer be eligible for the NRHP, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or other landmark programs. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project would have on the resource. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels (14 CCR Section 15126.4(a)(1)). California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR was established in 1992 by Assembly Bill 2881. It is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts (Andrus and Shrimpton undated). The criteria for eligibility of listing in the CRHR are based upon the NRHP criteria, and are identified as 1‒4 instead of A‒D. To be eligible for the CRHR, a property generally must be at least 50 years of age and must possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of these four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-7 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Like the NRHP, properties eligible for the CRHR may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts. The enabling legislation for the CRHR is less rigorous than the NRHP with regard to the issue of integrity, yet the expectation is that eligible properties should retain enough of their historic-period character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance (California OHP undated). Evaluations for the CRHR are based upon the evaluation instructions and classification system prescribed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in its “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources,” which include Status Codes to classify potential historical resources. These Status Codes are used statewide in the preparation of historical resource surveys and evaluation reports. The CRHR may include properties identified during historic resource surveys. However, properties included must be based on surveys that meet these criteria: 1. The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; 2. The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office (OHP) procedures and requirements; 3. The resource is evaluated and determined by the office (OHP) to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on a DPR Form 523; and 4. If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the CRHR, the survey is updated to identify historical resources that have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those that have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource (PRC Section 5024.1). California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to HSC Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendent or “MLD”) it believes to be descended from the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-8 deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to cultural resources are presented below: Cultural Resources Element Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. • Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project’s potential impacts to existing cultural resources. • Policy 2: Identify, designate, and protect sites and buildings of historical importance. • Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive for cultural resources. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City’s Residential Conservation Overlay District Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1598) defines locally significant historic structures as “those residential structures constructed prior to 1925” (Title 11 Part III Chapter 11.3.05.005). The Ordinance states: “These locally-significant historic structures represent the city’s unique historical, social and cultural foundations and should be preserved as living parts of community life and development in order to build a greater understanding of the city’s past and give future generations the opportunity to appreciate, understand and enjoy the city’s remaining historic heritage (Title 11 Part III Chapter 11.3.05.005).” Unlike the NRHP and CRHR, the City’s Residential Conservation Overlay District Ordinance has no criteria for designating properties as locally-significant historic structures and makes no mention of concepts such as physical integrity or period of signific ance. IJ 3.4-9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources The Seal Beach Historic Resources Foundation currently acts as a hub and repository for historic photographs and stories to preserve and celebrate the history of Seal Beach. 3.4.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant cultural resources impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following impact analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project by Stantec in April 2025 (Appendix D). The Cultural Resources Assessment included a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), literature review, and review of California Building Environment Resource Directory (BERD). The records search was completed in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s cultural resources impacts are significant. Would the Project: •Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? •Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: •Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-10 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Historical Resources Impact CUL-1 The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. Impact Analysis The threshold for determining significant impacts to historical resources in the CEQA Guidelines is whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change, which is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate vicinity such that the historical resource is materially impaired. A historical resource would be materially impaired if a Project alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and/or local register (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][2]). CEQA defines historical resources as (1) resources eligible for or listed in the CRHR and/or NRHP; (2) resources listed in a local register; or (3) resources identified as historically significant in a historic resources survey. Historical resources are also typically at least 50 years old because of NPS and OHP minimum-age requirements for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. Therefore, buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that meet this age threshold and have not been previously evaluated generally have the potential to be identified as historical resources unless a detailed evaluation is prepared demonstrating that it is not eligible for national, state, and/or local listing. For the purpose of evaluating a resource’s eligibility as a historical resource, a minimum-age threshold of 45 years is commonly recommended to account for the delay between resource identification and a CEQA lead agency’s approval of a project. Stantec consulted the BERD to determine if the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program contains any resources listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP or CRHR, designated as California Registered Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest, or evaluated in historic resource surveys and other planning activities. One resource listed in the BERD is within the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program and two resources are immediately adjacent. Of the three resources previously recorded in BERD, the Naval Weapons Station was previously determined eligible for the NRHP and is a historical resource as defined by CEQA. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-11 Table 3.4-1: Previously Recorded BERD Resources Name Address OHP Status Code(s) Within Housing Opportunity Site/Main Street Program? Seal Beach Red Car Electric Avenue 7P No—adjacent Naval Weapons Station 800 Seal Beach Blvd 2S2 No—adjacent Seal Beach Plaza 13962 Seal Beach Blvd 6Y Yes Notes: 2S2 – Individually determined eligible for the NRHP by consensus throughout Section 106 process. Listed in the CRHR. 5S1 – Individually listed or designated locally. 6Y – Determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CRHR or local listing. Appears individually eligible for the NRHP through survey evaluation. 7P – State Point of Historical Interest that does not meet the CRHR criteria. The City does not have an identified Historic District or an inventory of historical resources or landmarks located within the City. However, the City has identified a few resources within the City that are considered by the City to be locally historic resources or community landmarks. Stantec consulted with the City of Seal Beach to determine if the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program contain any locally designated resources. One resource within the Main Street Program is designated as a City historic resource, the Bay Theater, under Resolution No. 6685. The Bay Theater is a historical resource as defined by CEQA and has an OHP status code of 5S1 which is defined above in Table 3.4-1. This is a City identified landmark that has not met the qualifications for listing in federal, state, or local historic resources inventories. One historical resource listed in the CRHR, the Naval Weapons Station, is located adjacent to Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, and 6. In addition, previously unidentified resources 45 years old or older have the potential to be historical resources as defined by CEQA due to their age. Sixteen structures are potentially 45 years old or older on Housing Opportunity Sites 1–2, 4, and 6–8. An unknown number of structures within the Main Street Program area are 45 years old or older. Additionally, though not listed in or eligible to be listed in any historical resources inventory, Los Alamitos JFTB is an area that provides historical significance to the City and may be determined to be a historical resource or landmark of importance by the City. Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 are located within close proximity to Los Alamitos JFTB. The Project would have no direct impact on historical resources. The Project involves the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of sites within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area to plan for potential future housing developments within the City. The Project’s actions would not directly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources due to demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. The Project would potentially have indirect impacts on historical resources as it may facilitate future development activities that would directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources. Two identified historical resources are within or adjacent to the Project area, as well as an unknown number of previously unevaluated resources 45 years old or older that have the potential to be historical resources. It is possible that future development activities may demolish or significantly alter IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-12 these known and unknown historical resources or introduce a new visual element that alters a resource’s setting. As such, indirect impacts to historical resources would be potentially significant. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 discussed below would reduce impacts to historical resources. This would be accomplished by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. Therefore, with the incorporation of the mitigation measure, the Project impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The ORCC Specific Plan Project area is located directly south of the Los Alamitos JFTB and directly north of the Naval Weapons Station across I-405. The Naval Weapons Station is a historical resource as defined by CEQA; however, the Los Alamitos JFTB is not listed in or eligible to be listed in any historical resources inventory. As Los Alamitos JFTB is an area that provides historical significance to the City, it may be determined to be a historical resource or landmark of importance by the City. The development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would change the visual character of the area adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station and Los Alamitos JFTB. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER should involve a California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) and California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) records search and preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not been previously identified as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for NRHP, CRHR, and local landmark eligibility per NPS, OHP, and City guidelines. All evaluated resources should be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-13 analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Archaeological Resources Impact CUL-2 The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impact Analysis CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource, then the lead agency determines if it meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined at CEQA Section 21083.2(g). In practice, however, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource. Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.2. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or an archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). As identified in the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, three archaeological cultural resources have been identified at, or in the vicinity of, one of the Housing Opportunity Sites: P-30- 000143, P-30-000264, and P-30-001546. The status of these three archaeological cultural resources is unknown at this time, including their integrity (i.e., whether these sites contain intact subsurface archaeological deposits) and their eligibility for listing in either the CRHR or NRHP. At least two of these sites have reported Native American human remains, and regardless of these sites’ status as historical resources or archaeological resources under CEQA, the presence of such remains triggers protections under sections of the California PRC and HSC, as described in Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project. Additionally, other precontact and historic-period archaeological cultural resources have been identified in Seal Beach, and the potential to unearth buried archaeological deposits during development cannot be ruled out and should be assessed on a project and site-specific basis. The Project, therefore, may have direct impacts on known archaeological cultural resources (including those that qualify as “historical resources” and “archaeological resources” under CEQA) as well as previously unrecorded cultural resources that could be unearthed during ground disturbance. Future developments facilitated by the Project could cause a substantial adverse change to archaeological IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-14 cultural resources due to their demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. As such, impacts to archaeological cultural resources would be potentially significant. To mitigate significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL- 3 would be required. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 outlines the required development review process for archaeological resources for future development projects and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 outlines requirements to be followed if human remains are found during construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be reduced and the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require excavation and earthmoving activities during construction. As precontact and historic-period archaeological cultural resources have been identified in the City, the potential to unearth buried archaeological deposits during development cannot be ruled out. The ORCC Specific Plan Project site is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources. Additional study of this future development is recommended to fully assess future project impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The qualified archaeologist shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. MM CUL-3: Human Remains. The City shall use the development review process to identify human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-15 procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coroner determines the remains to be Native American then: (1) the coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours; (2) the NAHC would identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native American; (3) the most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the geographic scope of impacts for cultural resources is limited to the specific project site. The potential for impacts to occur to known and unknown cultural resources is site-specific and cannot combine with cumulative projects to produce a larger impact and therefore, cultural resources does not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, a table of related projects that contribute to cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts is not included within this section. However, indirect cumulative impacts could occur if the Project and related projects cumulatively effect historical resources. Because the specific direct and indirect impacts of the Project and future cumulative projects are unknown, it is possible that the incremental effects on historical resources could be cumulatively considerable. Potential cumulative impacts include contributing to impacts to historical resources in the immediate vicinity; contribute to changes to the same historical resource; or involve resources that are examples of the same property type as those within the Project area. The Project, in conjunction with other cumulative development identified in Table 3.0-3 has the potential to cumulatively impact historical resources. However, as identified above, proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level related to historical resources. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential historical and archaeological impacts and identify necessary mitigation IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources 3.4-16 measures, where appropriate. Each cumulative project would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures as those identified for the Project to reduce potential project specific impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to historical or archaeological cultural resources. 3.4.5 References Stantec. 2024. Cultural Resources Assessment Report, October 2024. PDF. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-1 3.5 ENERGY This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting energy resources. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts relative to energy resources that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact is less than significant. The Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation and the impact is less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the energy demand calculations and consistency analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Within Orange County, energy is provided in the form of petroleum fuel (gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas. In 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles were purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Southern California Edison (SCE) is the utility company that provides electricity to the City of Seal Beach. In 2022, for their standard power mix, approximately 33.2 percent of SCE’s electricity came from renewable resources including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric sources. Additionally, approximately 45 percent of SCE's total electric power mix is from GHG-free sources, which includes nuclear and large hydroelectric sources of energy (SCE 2024). In 2022, Orange County consumed approximately 20,244 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, 39 percent of which is attributed to residential land uses (CEC 2016a). Natural gas is used for cooking, space heating, generating electricity, and as an alternative transportation fuel. Natural gas service is provided to the City by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). In 2022, Orange County consumed approximately 572 million therms of natural gas, 61 percent of which is attributed to residential land uses (CEC 2016b). 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting The following includes the key federal, state, and local regulations related to energy resources that are applicable to the Project. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-2 Federal Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines as well as licensing hydropower projects. Licensing of hydroelectric facilities under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission includes input from state and federal energy and power generation, environmental protection, fish and wildlife, and water quality agencies. National Energy Conservation Policy Act The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S. Code [USC] Section 8201 et seq.) serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements and is the foundation of most federal energy requirements. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act also established fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. NHTSA and USEPA are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of clean energy vehicles with improved fuel efficiency. NHTSA sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels, which are rapidly increasing over the next several years to improve energy security and reduce fuel consumption. In March 2022, the NHTSA finalized CAFE standards for model years 2024 to 2026. The standards require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks by model year 2026. The NHTSA projects that the foregoing standards will avoid consumption of approximately 234 billion gallons of gasoline between model years 2030 to 2050 (NHTSA 2022). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) aimed to increase U.S. energy security, increased CAFE standards for motor vehicles, and included provisions related to energy efficiency, such as renewable fuel standards (RFS), appliance and lighting efficiency standards; and building energy efficiency standards. The EISA required increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum. The USEPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure transportation fuel sold into the U.S. contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS programs regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel products, and other stakeholders and were created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS program established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the U.S. As required under the EISA, the original RFS program required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. The RFS program was expanded in several ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program is referred to as RFS2, and includes the following: m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-3 EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one; and EISA required by USEPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces. Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternate energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.” Federal Vehicle Standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) mandated that the NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy, known as the CAFE program, to reduce national energy consumption. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the USC, as amended by the EISA, EPCA sets forth specific requirements concerning the establishment of average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The EISA, discussed above, amended the EPCA CAFE program requirements by providing the Department of Transportation additional rulemaking authority and responsibilities. Consistent with its statutory authority in rulemaking to establish CAFE standards for model year 2017 and beyond, NHTSA developed two phases of standards. The first phase included final standards for model years 2017–2021. The second phase, covering model years 2022–2025, included standards that were not final, due to the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel economy standards not more than five model years at a time. Rather, NHTSA wrote that those standards were augural, meaning that they represented its best estimate, based on the information available at that time, of what levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in those model years. In 2012, the agencies jointly adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for light duty cars and trucks, which would cover model years 2017 through 2025. In August of 2016, the agencies adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which would cover model years 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. On March 31, 2020, NHTSA and the USEPA released a new rule, the final Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, setting CAFE and carbon dioxide emissions standards for model years 2021 through 2026 passenger cars and light trucks. The rule rolls back the 2012 standards for model years 2021 through 2026 for passenger cars and light trucks, which had required an average fleetwide fuel economy equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon in model year 2025 with a 5 percent annual increase to an average fuel economy of about 40 miles per gallon in model year 2025 with annual increases of 1.5 percent starting in 2021. As a part of issuing the new SAFE rule, NHTSA issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement which found that the relaxed standards would result in increased petroleum • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-4 consumption which in turn would result in increases to GHG and criteria pollutant emissions known to contribute to adverse health impacts (NHTSA 2020). The estimated increases from the roll back of the 2012 standards are expected to result in more than a billion metric tons additional climate pollution through 2040 as determined by calculating the difference from the reduction of 2 billion metric tons the 2012 rule was expected to accomplish compared to the standards of the 2020 rule (NHTSA 2020). On January 20, 2021, an EO was issued on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which includes review of the Part One Rule by April 2021 and review of the Part Two Rule by July 2021. In response to the Part One Rule, in December 2021, the Department of Transportation withdrew its portions of the SAFE rule. As a result, states are now allowed to issue their own GHG emissions standards and zero-emissions vehicle mandates. In addition, the Part Two Rule was adopted to revise the existing national GHG emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks through model year 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and will result in avoiding more than three billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is considered the most ambitious climate law in U.S. history, and is intended to reduce GHG emissions, help build a clean economy, reduce energy costs for Americans, and advance environmental justice. With funding from the IRA, the USEPA has launched a network of clean energy financing and provided grant funding for climate pollution reduction programs (USEPA 2024). State California Public Utilities Commission The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is a state agency created by a constitutional amendment to regulate privately-owned utilities providing telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation services and in-state moving companies. The CPUC is responsible for ensuring that California utility customers have safe, reliable utility services at reasonable rates, while protecting utility customers from fraud. The CPUC regulates the planning and approval for the physical construction of electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities, and local distribution pipelines of natural gas. California Energy Code Compliance with the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards) and Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy, standards must occur for all new buildings constructed in California. These efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential (i.e., maintenance buildings and pump station buildings associated with the Program) buildings, and they regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit processes, and local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings provided that these standards meet or exceed those provided in the Title 24 guidelines. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-5 Warren-Alquist Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act Initially passed in 1974 and amended since, the Warren-Alquist Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (Warren-Alquist Act) created the California Energy Commission (CEC), California’s primary energy and planning agency. The seven responsibilities of the CEC are forecasting future energy needs, promoting energy efficiency and conservation through setting standards, supporting energy- related research, developing renewable energy resources, advancing alternative and renewable transportation fuels and technologies, certifying thermal power plants 50 megawatts or larger, and planning for and directing state response to energy emergencies. The CEC regulates energy resources by encouraging and coordinating research into energy supply and demand problems to reduce the rate of growth of energy consumption. Additionally, the Warren-Alquist Act acknowledges the need for renewable energy resources and encourages the CEC to explore renewable energy options that would be in line with environmental and public safety goals (Warren-Alquist Act PRC section 25000 et seq.) California Integrated Energy Policy SB 1389 requires the CEC to "conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety." (PRC Section 25301(a)). The CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report every two years and an update every other year. The most recent version is the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update (CEC 2022). California Renewables Portfolio Standard California’s RPS was initially established in 2002 by SB 1078, with the initial requirement that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable resources by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, which required that the 20 percent mandate be met by 2010. In April 2011, SB 2 was signed into law, requiring electricity retailers in the state to procure 33 percent of their energy sources from renewable energy sources by the end of 2020 (CPUC 2021). In addition, SB 350, passed in 2015, directs California utilities to further increase the amount of renewable energy delivered to customers to 50 percent by 2030. CPUC implements and administers RPS compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity, which include large and small investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators. The CEC is responsible for the certification of electrical generation facilities as eligible renewable energy resources and adopting regulations for the enforcement of RPS procurement requirements of public owned utilities. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach (City of Seal Beach 2003). The General Plan contains the current Housing Element m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-6 Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The City’s Housing Element Update includes the following goal and policies to promote energy efficiency: Housing Element Update Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. Policy 6b: Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. City of Seal Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code includes various regulations related to energy. Municipal Code Section 10.15.015, Energy Conservation, requires for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities to the extent feasible. Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.045, Solar Energy Systems, outlines installation standards for solar energy systems. 3.5.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant energy impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis Project energy demand during construction and operations was determined based on the modeling that was conducted for the Project using CalEEMod and using vehicle and equipment emission factors from the CARB’s EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) and EMFAC OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5). Construction energy use was calculated for the most energy-intensive future development under the Project, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most housing units. At maximum buildout, Housing Opportunity Site 4 can accommodate 552 high- density dwelling units at a density of 46 dwelling units per acre. For operation, energy-use was calculated for 1,773 dwelling units. The energy calculations are included as Appendix B. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether energy impacts are significant. • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-7 Would the Project: Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Use of Energy Impact EN-1 The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Impact Analysis The energy requirements for buildout of the up to 1,773 dwelling units as analyzed in this Draft EIR were determined using the construction and operational estimates generated from the calculation worksheets for energy consumption (Appendix B). This impact addresses the energy consumption from both construction of an individual project and operational activities from the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, discussed separately below. Construction Energy Demand During construction activities for development of future projects under the Project, energy resources would be consumed in the form of diesel and gasoline fuel from the use of off-road equipment (i.e., tractors, excavators, cranes) and on-road vehicles (i.e., construction employee commutes, haul trucks). Construction is not anticipated to require natural gas. Temporary electricity may be required to provide as-necessary lighting and electric equipment; such electricity demand would be met by portable generator sets and, possibly, local distribution. Fuel demand associated with portable generators is incorporated in the off-road equipment estimate provided below. The amount of electricity used during construction would be minimal. Specific buildout details of each future development facilitated by the Project are not available at this time; accordingly, this analysis presents estimated construction energy demand associated with buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which would accommodate up to 552 multi-family units. All other Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are planned to involve development of fewer units and less ground disturbance and, thus, would likely result in less energy consumption during construction. Therefore, the development of Housing Opportunity Site 4 is anticipated to be the most energy-intensive future development due to the size of the site. Off-Road Equipment Construction activities associated with buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, including site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating, were estimated to consume 46,170 • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-8 gallons of diesel fuel from the use of off-road equipment. For comparison, in 2022, approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Thus, the diesel fuel required to power the off-road equipment during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 would represent approximately 0.002 percent of the state’s annual diesel demand. If the construction fuel demand for off-road equipment is scaled up to 1,773 units, then cumulative buildout of all developments facilitated by the Project would utilize approximately 0.005 percent of the state’s annual diesel demand. On-Road Vehicles On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 3.51 provides an estimate of the total on-road vehicle fuel usage during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4. Table 3.5-1: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption Project Component VMT Gasoline Consumptions (gallons) Diesel Consumption (gallons) Electricity Consumption (kWh) Worker Trips 1,885,331 65,515 258 34,352 Vendor Trips 150,472 4,436 7,819 977 Haul Trips 7,000 1 1,146 82 Totals 2,042,804 69,952 9,224 35,411 Notes: Calculations use unrounded numbers; totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding. VMT = vehicle miles traveled Source: Appendix B. As shown above, construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 was estimated to consume 69,952 gallons of gasoline, 9,224 gallons of diesel, and 35,411 kWh of electricity associated with the use of on-road vehicles. For comparison, in 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Thus, the fuel required to power the on-road motor vehicles during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 would represent approximately 0.0005 percent and 0.0003 percent of the state’s annual gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. If the construction fuel demand for on-road vehicles is scaled up to 1,773 units, then cumulative buildout of all developments facilitated by the Project would utilize approximately 0.0016 percent and 0.001 percent of the state’s annual gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. Construction Conclusion Overall, construction activities associated with each Housing Opportunity Site and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels and I I I I I 7 - I I I I - - I ~ I - I I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-9 electricity from electric vehicles. However, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with each future development facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. Operational Energy Demand Implementation of the Project as analyzed in this Draft EIR would result in future development of up to 1,773 new dwelling units. During operations of the Project, energy would be required to power the residential buildings and to fuel the vehicles travelling to and from the sites. Building Energy The 1,733 new dwelling units would require energy for normal operations, such as lighting and temperature controls. Building energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout. Over the course of a year, operational building energy consumption for all dwelling units accommodated by the Project would total approximately 6,642,169 kWh of electricity and 24,075,048 kBTU of natural gas.1 It is noted that all future buildings would be constructed in compliance with the energy efficiency standards set forth in the California Building Standards Code that is applicable at the time of construction. As the California Building Standards Code will likely require more efficient design measures in the future, this represents a conservative estimate of the total electricity and natural gas Project buildout may require. Therefore, the Project’s total energy consumption would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Transportation Energy Future users of the 1,773 new dwelling units would travel to and from their residences during normal operations. Transportation energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout and consistent with the VMT assessment prepared for the Project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in the operational air quality and GHG analysis for the Project. Table 3.5-2 provides an estimate of the annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project sites. As shown in the table, annual vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 1,137,357 gallons of gasoline, 133,422 gallons of diesel, and 895,624 kWh of electricity. In 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles were purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Therefore, full buildout of the Project would result in transportation fuel consumption that represents approximately 0.008 percent and 0.004 percent of the state’s annual demand for gasoline and diesel, respectively. The Project would not result in vehicle use that is any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other vehicle uses in the region. 1 These estimates do not account for the implementation of any mitigation. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-10 Table 3.5-2: Project Operations – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Proportion of Fleet Gasoline Consumptions (gallons/yr) Diesel Consumption (gallons/yr) Electricity Consumption (kWh/yr) Passenger Cars (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV)0.9236 1,069,206 3,881 786,447 Trucks (HHDT, MHDT, LHDT1, LHDT2) 0.0701 61,979 125,861 106,883 Motorcycles, Motor Homes, and Buses (MCY, MH, OBUS, SBUS, UBUS)0.0063 6,171 3,679 2,294 Totals 1.00 1,137,357 133,422 895,624 Notes: Calculations use unrounded numbers; totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding. VMT = vehicle miles traveled Source: Appendix B. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction and operation from the total 1,773 units were evaluated in the analysis above. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, both construction and operations of future developments facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not result in a potential significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. -I I I I 1~ ~ i--- ~ r-- m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-11 Conflict with Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency Plan Impact EN-2 The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impact Analysis All developments facilitated by the Project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Local regulations have been developed in accordance with federal and state energy regulations, such as the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743, which are also aimed at reducing energy consumption. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.5.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for cumulative energy impacts is regional. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.5-3 m 3.5-12 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to energy and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.5-3: Cumulative Projects Related to Energy # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 I I I I I 7 t---- - I t--- L ---' m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-13 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - ,__ - - !.... I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-14 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.5-3 could increase regional energy demands. Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in increased energy consumption within the City. Potential impacts related to energy resources from future developments that is facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require applications for development permits that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, any future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743. Consequently, any future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to energy resources and no mitigation is required. I 1 I I I 7 ~ - - I I I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Energy 3.5-15 3.5.5 References California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). 2024. Fuel Taxes Statistics & Reports. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed January 2024. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016a. Electricity Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2016b. Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2022-integrated-energy-policy-report-update. Accessed January 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2021. 60% RPS Procurement Rules. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-power- procurement/rps/rps-compliance-rules-and-process/60-percent-rps-procurement-rules. Accessed January 2024. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2020. Final Environmental Impact Statement for The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/safe_vehicles_rule_feis.pdf. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate- average-fuel-economy#40466. Accessed January 2024. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2024. 2022 Power Content Label – Southern California Edison. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. Accessed January 2024. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024. Inflation Reduction Act. https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act. Accessed January 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-1 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for geology and soils. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to geology and soils that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. Development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project could result in discovery of undiscovered paleontological resources at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet due to the geologic units underlying the site. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Paleontological Resources Fossils are evidence of ancient life, defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) as being over 5,000 years in age, or middle Holocene. While CEQA does not define a significance threshold for paleontological resources, the standards of the SVP (2010) are often used in the absence of a legal definition. The SVP defines scientifically important fossils as: identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years). [SVP 2010: 11]. Using this definition, the concept of scientific importance is included in the definition of paleontological resources; thus, not all fossils are considered to be paleontological resources. The threshold for scientific importance varies with factors such as geologic unit, geographic area, the current state of scientific research, and may also vary between different agencies (Murphey et al. 2019). Paleontological studies have developed criteria for the assessment of scientific importance of fossil discoveries (e.g., Murphey et al. 2019, Scott and Springer 2003). In general, these studies assess fossils as scientifically important if one or more of the following criteria apply: The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct. • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-2 The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events, through biochronology or biostratigraphy and the correlation with isotopic dating. The fossils provide ecological data, such as the development of biological communities, the interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas, or the biogeography of lineages. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life. The fossils provide information on the preservational pathways of paleontological resources, including taphonomy, diagenesis, or preservational biases in the fossil record. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. The fossils inform our understanding of anthropogenic affects to global environments or climate. A review of geologic mapping, the scientific literature, online collections data from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and a records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County was conducted to identify the geologic units likely present at the surface or in the subsurface of the Project site and assess their potential for preserving paleontological resources (Appendix E). This study indicates four geologic units are mapped at the surface of the Project site: beach and paralic estuarine deposits, which are assessed as having low paleontological potential; unit 2 of young alluvium which is assessed as having low-to-high paleontological potential, increasing with depth, and old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, which are assessed as having high paleontological potential. Additionally, older Pleistocene-aged marine formations with high paleontological potential such as the San Pedro Formation, Palos Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt may be present in the subsurface, underlying the other units. 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies these researchers must agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers. This Act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of Interior in 2000, which establishes that most vertebrate fossils and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources (DOI 2000). • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-3 State California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (PRC Sections 21000 et seq) requires that before approving most discretionary projects, the Lead Agency must identify and examine any significant adverse environmental effects that may result from activities associated with such projects. As updated in 2016, CEQA separates the consideration of paleontological resources from cultural resources (PRC Section 21083.09). The Appendix G checklist (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) requires an answer to the question, “Will the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” Under these requirements, Stantec has conducted a paleontological resources assessment to determine impacts of the proposed project on paleontological resources within the Project area. California Public Resources Code Section 5097 PRC Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. California Penal Code Section 622.5 The California Penal Code (PC) Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources, whether from private or public lands. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (PRC Division 20) requires reasonable mitigation measures where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources that have been designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (Section 30244). Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach (City of Seal Beach 2003). The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to paleontological resources are presented below: Cultural Resources Element The City’s Cultural Resources Element contains the following goals and policies related to cultural resources, specifically paleontological resources, that apply to the Project: Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-4 Protect Significant Paleontological Resources Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant paleontological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. If the project involves earthwork, require a study conducted by a professional paleontologist to determine if palaeontologic assets are present and if the project will significantly impact the resources. If significant impacts are identified, either require the project to be modified to avoid impacting the palaeontologic materials or require measures to mitigate the impacts. Development Services is the primary City department responsible for ongoing implementation, and funding is anticipated to be provided by development fees. 3.6.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant geology and soils impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the Project site, including the General Plan and the Paleontological Resources Technical Report prepared by Stantec Consulting Services for the Project (Appendix E). The following impact discussions consider the effects of the Project related to geology and soils, specifically paleontological resources, in the City. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s geology and soils impacts are significant. Would the Project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o 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? • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-5 o Strong seismic ground shaking? o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? o Landslides? o Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature Impact GEO-1 The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impact Analysis As the Project does not include proposal of any specific developments or ground disturbing activities at this time, there are no direct adverse impacts to paleontological resources. However, future developments conducted as a result of the Project can be reasonably expected to include ground disturbance activities. New ground disturbance that occurs in geologic units with high paleontological potential may encounter paleontological resources. Should discovery of undiscovered paleontological resources occur during one of the resulting future development projects resulting from the Project, the damage or destruction of the resources would constitute an indirect adverse impact of this Project. Within the Project area, this could occur at any depth in the Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, or Main Street Program area, and at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet at the Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. The differences in depths that discovery of undiscovered paleontological resources could occur at is based on the geologic units underlying the sites. Young alluvium is mapped throughout the northeastern portion of the Project area where Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are located. Younger surficial sediments (alluvium, lacustrine, eolian, etc.) have low potential to preserve paleontological resources due to their age; yet sediments increase in age with depth and so these surficial deposits often overlay older units that have high paleontological potential. Therefore, the potential for undiscovered paleontological resources to occur within the geologic unit underlying Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 increases with depth. Potential future developments would be required to comply with the federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act that limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-6 fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency and PRC Section 5097 that prohibits the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grading and excavation) associated with potential future developments in the Project area could uncover fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments that have not been recorded. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 which requires preparation of a paleontological monitoring program for each future development would ensure that potential impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources are reduced. As such, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to paleontological resources, in addition to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would ensure that potential future developments that results from implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is located adjacent to Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5. As identified above, undiscovered paleontological resources could be discovered at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet at Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5. As the geologic units underlying the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is also identified as young alluvium similar to Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5, it is anticipated that undiscovered paleontological resources could be discovered at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet for the ORCC Specific Plan Project site. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator shall be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project-specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should be outlined in a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include: A Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training developed by the Project Paleontologist that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during construction to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designated representative to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-7 Fulltime paleontological monitoring when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential, which is expected to occur when work exceeds 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or when work occurs at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. Procedures to follow in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, including work stoppage in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, assessment by the Project Paleontologist, and, should the fossils be of scientific importance, collection and curation in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. A Paleontological Monitoring Report documenting the results of the mitigation program. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, cumulative context for geology and soils impacts is the immediate project vicinity. However, the cumulative context for paleontological resources analyzed in this section is limited to the specific project site. The potential for impacts to occur to known and unknown paleontological resources is site-specific and cannot combine with cumulative projects to produce a larger impact and therefore, impacts related to paleontological resources does not contribute to cumulative impacts. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils 3.6-8 impacts concerning geology, soils, and paleontological resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. As identified above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to paleontological resources with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measure. Any future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with this mitigation measure and cumulative developments would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to potentially cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this section and compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 3.6.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan Cultural Resources Element https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Cultural%20Resources.pdf. Accessed October 2024. Murphey, P., G. Knauss, L. Fisk, T. Demere, and R. Reynolds. 2019. Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47: 43 pp. Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor 4-10. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the assessment and Mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed October 2024. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2000. Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands, Report of the Secretary of the Interior. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick%20links_Assessment%20 of%20Fossil%20Management%20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands%2C%20May%2 02000.pdf. Accessed November 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-1 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section describes the impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result from implementation of the Project. Included is a review of existing conditions, a summary of applicable policies and regulations related to GHG emissions, and analysis of environmental impacts of the Project. Where applicable, mitigation measures are included for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would exceed SCAQMD’s draft interim thresholds and, therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The Project could conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for reducing GHG emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1, the impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the emissions calculations and consistency analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect” and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse Gases Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Primary GHGs attributed to global climate change are discussed in the following subsections. Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-2 of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (USEPA 2023a). Methane. CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas, and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years (USEPA 2023a). Nitrous Oxide. N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years (USEPA 2023a). Hydrofluorocarbons. HFCs are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC-23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (USEPA 2023a). Perfluorocarbons. PFCs are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively (USEPA 2023a). Nitrogen Trifluoride. NF3 is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, toxic, nonflammable gas used as an etchant in microelectronics. NF3 is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chambers in the production of liquid crystal displays and silicon-based thin film solar cells. In 2009, NF3 was listed by California as a potential GHG to be listed and regulated under AB 32 (Section 38505 HSC). Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and generally nonflammable. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-3 power industry uses roughly 80percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Leaks of SF6 occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (USEPA 2023b). Black Carbon. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly by absorbing sunlight and indirectly by depositing on snow and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is considered a short-lived species, which can vary spatially and, consequently, it is very difficult to quantify associated global-warming potentials. The main sources of black carbon in California are wildfires, off-road vehicles (locomotives, marine vessels, tractors, excavators, dozers, etc.), on-road vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), fireplaces, agricultural waste burning, and prescribed burning (planned burns of forest or wildlands). California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, including programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2013). Global Warming Potential Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Based on a 100-year time horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions On a global scale, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with activities related to energy production; changes in land use, such as deforestation and land clearing; industrial sources; agricultural activities; transportation; waste and wastewater generation; and commercial and residential land uses. World-wide, energy production including the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global GHG emissions. United States of America In 2022, net GHG emissions in the United States totaled 5,489 MMTCO2e, an increase of one percent when compared to 2021 emissions. Within the United States, the largest contributor to GHG emissions is the transportation sector (28 percent). The next largest contributors are from electricity production (25 percent) and industry (23 percent), followed by the commercial and residential sector (13 percent) and the agricultural sector (10 percent). Transportation emissions primarily come from burning fossil fuels for cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum-based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel. The bulk of emissions generated from energy production come from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. Industry emissions are also primarily m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-4 generated from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain GHGs, and the handling of waste. Similar to industry sector emissions, commercial and residential uses arise primarily from fossil fuels for heat, the use of certain products that contain GHGs, and the handling of waste. Agricultural emissions come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soil, and rice production. The land use and forestry sector within the U.S. serves as a carbon sink. Carbon sinks absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Land areas across the U.S. absorbed approximately 12 percent of the 2021 GHG emissions (USEPA 2024). California In 2022, GHG emissions within California totaled 371.1 MMTCO2e. Similar to national emissions, in California, the transportation sector is the largest contributor. Transportation emissions account for approximately 39 percent of the total statewide GHG emissions. The majority of transportation emissions are derived from passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. Emissions associated with industrial uses are the second largest contributor, totaling roughly 23 percent. Industrial emissions are driven by fuel combustion from sources that include refineries, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and the portion of cogeneration emissions attribution to thermal energy output. Electricity generation (in-state and imports) totaled roughly 16 percent. Other GHG sources include agriculture (8 percent), residential (8 percent), and commercial (6 percent) (CARB 2024c). Effects of Global Climate Change There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, increased air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy. Within California, climate changes would likely alter the ecological characteristics of many ecosystems throughout the state. Such alterations would likely include increases in surface temperatures and changes in the form, timing, and intensity of precipitation. For instance, historical records are depicting an increasing trend toward earlier snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada. This snowpack is a principal supply of water for the state, providing roughly 50 percent of state’s annual runoff. If this trend continues, some areas of the state may experience an increased danger of floods during the winter months and possible exhaustion of the snowpack during spring and summer months. An earlier snowmelt would also impact the state’s energy resources. An early exhaustion of the Sierra snowpack may force electricity producers to switch to more costly or non-renewable forms of electricity generation during spring and summer months. A changing climate may also impact agricultural crop yields, coastal structures, and biodiversity. As a result, resultant changes in climate will likely have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-5 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting There are considerable regulatory actions regarding GHGs and climate change at the state and local level. The following includes the key state and regional regulations applicable to the Project. State Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 AB 32 (2006) requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, NF3, has also been added to the list of GHGs. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following: Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007. Therefore, to meet the state’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. In order to set a framework for the state to meet this target, CARB was tasked with creating a Scoping Plan (as described below). California announced in July 2018 that the state emitted 427 MMTCO2e in 2016 and achieved AB 32 goals (CARB 2018). SB 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016. SB 32 states that “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide GHG emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” Assembly Bill 1279: The California Climate Crisis AB 1279 was signed into law in 2022 and establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. AB 1279 would also ensure that by 2045 the statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced by at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that an updated Scoping Plan identifies and recommends measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies to complement AB 1279’s emissions reduction requirements. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-6 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan was approved in December 2022 and assesses progress toward achieving the SB 32 2030 target and laying out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the state’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022). Cap-and-Trade Program CARB administers the state’s cap-and-trade program, which covers GHG sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year), such as refineries, power plants, and industrial facilities. This market-based approach to reducing GHG emissions provides economic incentives for achieving GHG emission reductions. Senate Bill 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits more than 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. CARB has prepared a Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets in 2018 which set updated GHG reduction targets for metropolitan planning organizations for 2020 and 2035. Pursuant to SB 375, the SCAG reduction targets for per capita vehicular emissions were 8 percent by 2020 and are 13 to 19 percent by 2035 (CARB 2024a). Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations and fuel efficiency standards that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by USEPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. USEPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The standards were phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards resulted in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards resulted in about a 30 percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation, rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-7 engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant. The second phase of the implementation for AB 1493 was incorporated into Amendments to the Low- Emission Vehicle Program, referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation would reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The rules would reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars and would deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations would also provide adequate fueling infrastructure for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. Senate Bill 1368: Emission Performance Standards Enacted in 2006, SB 1368 directs the CPUC to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the state. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Senate Bill 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards SB 1078 (September 12, 2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, the governor signed Executive Order (EO) S-14-08, which established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. EO S-21-09 directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the state’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-23. In 2011, the state legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1-2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 SB 350 (October 7, 2015) reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-8 requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Senate Bill 100: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program SB 100 (September 10, 2018) revised the RPS goals to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. The bill also establishes a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Executive Order S-01-07: Low Carbon Fuel Standard EO S-01-07 was signed on January 18, 2007. The EO mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the EO established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in an implementation plan for the State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007, and was submitted to CARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009. The LCFS was subject to legal challenge in 2011. Ultimately, CARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS and new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulation on November 16, 2015. The regulation was last amended in 2019, and approved on May 27, 2020 and became effective on July 1, 2020. The 2019 amendments provide clarification related to the Clean Fuel Reward program costs, credit transactions, fuels transactions and compliance reporting. Additional amendments have been proposed and are going to approval hearings in March 2024 (CARB 2024b). Executive Order S-13-08: Climate Adaptation Strategy EO S-13-08, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in November 2008, states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in this EO, m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-9 the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted, which is the “… first statewide, multi- sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles In January 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-48-18 requiring all state entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of the electric vehicle charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This order also requires all state entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All state entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 Zero- Emissions Vehicle Action Plan to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, all state entities are to support and recommend policies and actions to expand ZEV infrastructure at residential land uses, through the LCFS Program and recommend how to ensure affordability and accessibility for all drivers. Executive Order N-79-20 In September 2020, Governor Newsom signed EO N-79-20, which sets the following goals for the state: 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks shall be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state shall be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment in the state shall be zero-emission by 2035, where feasible. Regional SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the following six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategies pursuant to SB 375, growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the SCAQMD air quality plans (SCAG 2023). In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, which is entitled Connect SoCal 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2024). The 2024 RTP/SCS supersedes the previous RTP/SCS that was adopted in 2020. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-10 Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach (City of Seal Beach 2003). The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The City’s Housing Element Update includes the following goal and policies to promote energy efficiency which would in turn reduce GHG emissions: Housing Element Update Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. Policy 6b: Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. 3.7.3 Environmental Impacts This section discusses how GHG thresholds were determined and the thresholds of significance that were used for this analysis. Additionally, this section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant GHG impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28 was used to estimate construction and operational GHG emissions from the Project. Construction emissions were estimated for the most emissions-intensive future development project under the Project, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most dwelling units. Operational modeling assumed full Project buildout. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for all emissions calculations can be found in Appendix B. Thresholds of Significance After the adoption of AB 32, the SCAQMD established a GHG working group to develop thresholds of significance for the analysis of GHG emissions. In December 2008, the SCAQMD Board adopted the Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, which established a screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD 2008). Additionally, the SCAQMD working group recommended that instead of an individual construction GHG threshold, construction emissions should be amortized over the life of the project (30 years) and evaluated with a project’s annual, operational GHG emissions. • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-11 CEQA Guidelines In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether GHG emission impacts are significant. Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Generation of Greenhouse Gases Impact GHG-1 The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impact Analysis The Project does not propose any individual development projects at this time but, rather, would facilitate future developments in the City. For the purposes of the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would result in future development of up to 1,733 new dwelling units as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Buildout of the future developments facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operations, as discussed in further detail below. Construction Emission Inventory GHG emissions would be generated during construction from off-road equipment and on-road vehicle exhaust from worker vehicle trips and hauling truck trips. Table 3.7-1, below, presents a summary of the estimated GHG emissions that would result from construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissions-intensive future development project under the Project. The table also includes an estimate of the total GHG emissions associated with cumulative buildout of the entire Project, assuming that construction of every Project unit released the same volume of GHG. To be consistent with SCAQMD’s GHG emissions policy, the table also presents construction emissions amortized over a 30- year Project lifetime. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-12 Table 3.7-1: Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year Emissions (MTCO2e per year) 2025 863.92 2026 405.74 Total for Housing Opportunity Site 4 1,269.70 Total for Full Project Buildout1 4,078 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 135.94 1 To estimate GHG emissions from Full Project Buildout, the emissions from construction of 552 units at Housing Opportunity Site 4 were scaled up on a unit-wise basis to 1,773 units for the purposes of the analysis contained in this Draft EIR. Source: Appendix A. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual operational emissions and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of significance below. Operational Emission Inventory Operational, or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the Project. Operational activities of the future developments facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions primarily from mobile sources. Operational GHG emissions from cumulative Project buildout, as well as amortized construction emissions, are shown in Table 3.7-2. Table 3.7-2: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Mobile 11,722 Area 30.6 Energy 2,890 Water 583 Waste 309 Refrigerants 2.12 Operation Subtotal 15,637 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 136 Project Total 15,773 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: Appendix A. 1~ - r---- i---- t--- t---- ~ L - I - I I - I I I - ~ - I t-- I r-- I t-- - -I ~ L J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-13 As shown in the table, full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which provides a menu of GHG reduction measures, is required. Table 3.7-3 presents the Project’s GHG emissions with application of the following GHG reduction measures: Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure; Provide bicycle parking; Provide traffic-calming measures; Exceed Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 10 percent; Require energy efficient appliances; Establish onsite solar energy systems sufficient to meet 50 percent of each structure’s electricity demand; Install alternative water heater in place of gas storage tank water heater; Install electric space heater in place of natural gas heaters; Install electric ranges in place of gas ranges Require low-flow water fixtures; Replace gas-powered landscape equipment with zero-emission landscape equipment; and Prohibit the installation of fireplaces. Table 3.7-3: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Mobile 11,722 Area - Energy 1,922 Water 554 Waste 409 Refrigerants 2.12 Operation Subtotal 14,609 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 136 • • • • • • • • • • • • I I 7 I I f---- ~ I -- ~ I I r-- I ,-- -- '--I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-14 Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Project Total 14,745 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 3,000 Exceeds Threshold?Yes Source: Appendix A. As presented above, while implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG emissions, the level of emissions would not be reduced to below the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.7-1. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3. Emissions were found to exceed GHG draft interim thresholds and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the Project could generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG impacts, the Project would still result in emissions that exceed the applicable threshold of significance. Future developments evaluated as part of the Project may be subject to discretionary permits and future CEQA review on a project-by-project basis. Regardless, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. r-- m I I I I 7 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-15 o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include offsite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-16 o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; o Provide parking cash-out programs; o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; d) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; e) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and f) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; g) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining onsite mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Impact GHG-2 The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact Analysis A project would have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions and global climate change if it would substantially conflict with the provisions of Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant GHG impact is identified if the project could conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations. The Project would be subject to complying with SB 32 and AB 1279. For this analysis, the applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions are the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Project consistency with the foregoing plans is evaluated below. Consistency with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan, approved in December 2022, builds upon previous iterations of state scoping plans to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions below 85 percent below m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-17 1990 no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279 (CARB 2022). Table 3.7-4 identifies the Scoping Plan policies that may be applicable to the developments facilitated by the Project. Table 3.7-4: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Measure Consistency Determination Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. While the Project would not deploy ZEVs, consistent with the 2022 California Building Standards Code, or applicable code at the time of construction, all residential buildings facilitated by the Project would include EV-capable infrastructure to accommodate future installation of a Level 2 EV charger. Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining CA fuel demand Not Applicable. This measure is aimed at petroleum refineries and fossil fuel extraction operations. The Project would not interfere with this goal. Generate clean electricity Consistent. Development facilitated by the Project would comply with all relevant provisions included in the California Building Standards Code applicable at the time of construction. Pursuant to the 2022 California Building Standards Code, new residential structures shall include rooftop solar panels to generate clean electricity. Decarbonize Buildings Consistent. Development facilitated by the Project would comply with all applicable provisions included in the California Building Standards Code applicable at the time of construction, which would help reduce GHG emissions associated with building operations. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that each future development facilitated by the Project would reduce GHG emissions. Decarbonize Industrial Energy Supply Not Applicable. The Project would facilitate development of residential land uses and would not affect the industrial sector. Reduce non-combustion emissions (Methane) Consistent. The Project would facilitate development of residential land uses and would not include any land uses that generate significant levels of methane, such as landfills or dairy farms. Reduce non-combustion emissions (Hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]) Consistent. Development facilitated under the Project would comply with all state regulations governing SLCPs, including HFCs. Compensate for remaining emissions Not Applicable. This measure is aimed at the state government to reduce statewide emissions to meet AB 1279 goals. Source: CARB 2022. This analysis finds that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Consistency with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. The primary goal of Connect SoCal 2024 is to achieve sustainable regional growth while reducing GHG emissions through transportation and land use planning. Project consistency with the specific goals of Connect SoCal 2024 which are applicable to the Project are evaluated in Table 3.7-5. ,-- --+----- m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-18 Table 3.7-5: Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Goal Consistency Determination Goal 36: Encourage housing development in transit-supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and resilient communities Consistent. Implementation of the Project would inherently support this goal. For the purposes of the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, the Project would facilitate the development of up to 1,773 dwelling units throughout the City. The housing types consist of multi-family residences designated for varying income levels, including low-income and moderate- income units. Additionally, Orange County Transportation Authority and Long Beach Transit both provide public transit services throughout the City. Thus, future residents of future developments facilitated by the Project would have access to public transportation options. Goal 37: Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region. Consistent. See discussion above. Additionally, by implementing the Housing Element Update and demonstrating the City’s ability to achieve provide housing at varying income levels, the Project would help encourage a diverse housing stock and contribute to more equitable communities. Goal 51: Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts. Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 would ensure that the Project reduces air and GHG emissions. Source: SCAG 2024a. The RTP/SCS generally encourages residential growth within identified priority growth areas, transit priority areas, and high-quality transit areas in order to facilitate the use of public transit and reduce per capita VMT. The City of Seal Beach does not include any priority growth areas, transit priority areas, and high-quality transit areas. However, multi-family housing is known to have a lower trip generation rate as compared to single-family residential units (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021). Furthermore, infill development and densification also support a reduced rate of single-passenger vehicle trips (Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation 2024). Based on the above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1, the Project is considered consistent with the overarching goals of Connect SoCal 2024. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAQG’s Connect SoCal 2024 were evaluated for the buildout of 1,773 dwelling units and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion The Project could conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; therefore, impacts could be considered significant. However, with the implementation of mitigation, the - r---- - -- I - m 3.7-19 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project would comply with all applicable measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan and the RTP/SCS, and the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 3.7.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative GHG impacts is the state as California has GHG reduction rules that all projects and jurisdictions within the state would be subject to. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.7-6 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to GHG emissions and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.7-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and Preparation of EIR 167 - I L - m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-20 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units specialty restaurant 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 I 1 I I I 7 ~ I - ~ r-- - ~ !_ I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-21 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Candidate site identified in the City of Proposed in Housing Element Update 122 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - ,-- - - - I ----' ~ - m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-22 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development (By City of Westminster) Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.7-6 could increase GHG emissions. Global GHG emissions are inherently a cumulative issue that is understood for CEQA purposes to be an existing significant and adverse condition. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Although the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions is global, this analysis focuses on the Project’s direct and/or indirect generation of GHG emissions on the region and the state. As discussed in this analysis, implementation of the Project, would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to the existing significant impact is cumulatively considerable. 3.7.5 References California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. GHG Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Inventory. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-slcp-inventory. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2018. Climate Pollutants Fall Below 1990 Levels for the First Time. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/climate-pollutants-fall-below-1990-levels-first-time. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp_1.pdf. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024a. SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024b. LCFS Regulation. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel- standard/lcfs-regulation. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024c. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory- data. Accessed October 2024. I 1 I I I 7 ~ - I_ I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-23 City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2024. SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions. https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html#housing-projects. Accessed October 2024. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document, Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed January 2024. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2023. About Us. https://scag.ca.gov/about-us. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. Connect SoCal 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final- complete-040424.pdf?1714175547. Accessed October 2024. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2023b. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Basics. https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur- hexafluoride-sf6-basics. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed October 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-1 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for hazards and hazardous materials. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area due to the proximity of the Los Alamitos JFTB and the impact would be less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to review by the ALUC for consistency with the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The consistency review and ALUC determination is being evaluated separately in a standalone EIR. 3.8.1 Environmental Setting Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials are manufactured, transported, stored, used, and disposed of on a regular basis. Although hazardous materials incidents can happen anywhere, certain areas are at higher risk. Within the state, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) regulates the use and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The DTSC is a division of Cal EPA and works in conjunction with the USEPA to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. The primary transportation routes of hazardous materials in Orange County near the City are the I-405 and I- 605 freeways. Some transportation of hazardous materials occurs on Pacific Coast highway and Seal Beach Boulevard within the City (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, there are several hazardous materials cleanup sites within the City that are listed on several databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker website (SWRCB 2024). Most of the sites considered for future development under the Project, as well as the ORCC Specific Plan Project site are not listed as active hazardous materials cleanup sites. However, Housing Opportunity Site 7 is identified as having an active cleanup program by SWRCB due to a former dry-cleaning facility that was located within the Seal Beach Shopping Center. As identified in the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, the site is currently being remediated and has an open remediation status as of 2017. Additionally, two active leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites are located within the Main Street Program area. These two active LUST cleanup sites are former Chevron and Shell Oil gas station sites. The former Shell Oil site located at 347 Main Street has a status of open – remediation as of m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-2 2002 and the former Chevron site located at 350 Main Street has a status of open – remediation as of 2022. Both sites are listed due to gasoline contamination in the groundwater; however, the two sites have undergone remediation activities and are listed due to required groundwater monitoring requirements as part of the remediation process. The two former gas station uses have since been closed and the sites have been redeveloped with commercial uses. Individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an environmental site assessment (ESA) by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Airport Hazards The nearest airport is the Los Alamitos JFTB, which abuts the northernmost portion of Seal Beach. The Los Alamitos JFTB conducts military aviation operations. Most of Seal Beach is within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB, except for the portion of the City located south of Electric Avenue. The Los Alamitos JFTB is within the oversight of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which is required to prepare and adopt an airport land use plan for each of the airports within its jurisdiction. The AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB was issued by the ALUC in 2002 and last amended in 2017. The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP is a land-use compatibility plan that is intended to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable space. The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP identifies standards for development in the airport’s planning area based on noise contours, accident-potential zones, and building heights. The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP divides the airport planning area into three specific zones: Noise Impact Zone 1 – High Impact Zone (65 decibel [dB] Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] and above), Noise Impact Zone 2 – Moderate Noise Impact (60 dB CNEL or greater, less than 65 dB CNEL), and Clear Zone/Runway Protection Zone (Extreme Crash Hazard). The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP also defines building height restrictions within the airport planning area based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Part 77 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR). In accordance with FAR Part 77, any proposed structure that is more than 200 feet tall is required to notify FAA and is subject to review by the ALUC. 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting Federal United States Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA was established in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. The USEPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends. The USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations and implement m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-3 environmental laws enacted by Congress, is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for using permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, the USEPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes to reach the desired levels of environmental quality. Laws and regulations established by the USEPA are enforced in Orange County by the Cal EPA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) set up the federal regulatory program for hazardous substances and gives the USEPA the authority to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances in a “cradle to grave” system. Under RCRA, the USEPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. This regulatory system includes tracking all generators of hazardous waste. 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment Act RCRA was amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment Act, which prohibited the use of certain techniques for the disposal of certain hazardous wastes. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 imposes safety requirements to protect local communities in the event of accidental release of hazardous substances. The requirements provide measures so that the risks from interaction with hazardous materials, such as handling, storage, and disposal, are mitigated or prevented. This law protects human health and the environment if the unintended release of hazardous materials was to occur. The USEPA has delegated fulfillment of many of RCRA’s requirements to DTSC. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation under CFR Title 49. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. These agencies also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 The FAA is charged with the review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Their role in reviewing these activities is to ensure that new structures do not result in a hazard to navigation. The regulations contained in FAR Part 77 are designed to ensure that no hazards are allowed to exist that would endanger the public. The FAA, through FAR Part 77, established a method of identifying surfaces that should be free from obstructions to maintain sufficient airspace around airports. FAR Part 77, in effect, identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport. In addition, Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports would be considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-4 State Hazardous Waste Control Act The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the state hazardous waste management program. It is similar to, but more stringent than, the federal RCRA program. The act is implemented by regulations contained in CCR Title 26, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design and permitting of recycling treatment, storage and disposal facilities; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous, and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with DTSC. California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Toxic Substances Control Cal EPA is responsible for creating and enforcing environmental regulations within California. Within Cal EPA is DTSC, which was formed under the Hazardous Waste Control Act. DTSC is responsible for regulating hazardous waste, remediating existing contamination, and identifying ways to reduce production of hazardous wastes. DTSC can delegate enforcement responsibilities to local jurisdictions. Unified Program The unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program) is a unified hazardous materials management program that was established by California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection following Senate Bill 1082 (1993). The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following programs: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories California Accidental Release Prevention Program Underground Storage Tank Program Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act Program Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements These six environmental programs are implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). CUPAs provide a central permitting and regulatory agency for permits, • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-5 reporting, and compliance enforcement. PRC Section 21151.4 sets special requirements for EIRs and negative declarations for projects that involve the construction or alteration of a facility within 0.25 mile of a school that creates the following conditions: The project might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions; The project would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in Section 25532(j) of the HSC; or The project may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school. As part of the CEQA process, the lead agency preparing the EIR must consult with the appropriate school district regarding the potential impact of the project on the school, and the school district must be notified about the project in writing at least 30 days before the proposed certification of the EIR (PRC Section 21151.4; 14 CCR Section 15186[b]). Cortese List Government Code Section 65962 Government Code Section 65962 was enacted in 1985 and was amended in 1992. It is used as a planning tool to comply with CEQA and requires information about locations of hazardous materials release sites. It states that through the combined efforts of DTSC, the Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and local enforcement agencies, a list of potentially hazardous areas and sites will be compiled and remain up to date (at a minimum, updated annually). The list is consolidated by the Secretary for Environmental Protection and is distributed to each city and county in which sites on the list are located. The list can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor database, which includes information from SWRCB’s GeoTracker database. California Department of Transportation Caltrans manages interregional transportation, including the management and construction of the California highway system. In addition, Caltrans is responsible for the permitting and regulation of state roadways and requires that permits be obtained for transportation of oversized loads and transportation of certain materials, such as hazardous materials, and for construction-related traffic disturbance. California Public Resources Code PRC Section 21151.4 is another key state law pertaining to hazardous materials, and is presented verbatim below: a) An environmental impact report shall not be certified or a negative declaration shall not be approved for any project involving the construction or alteration of a facility within one-fourth of a mile of a school that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or that would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified pursuant to subdivision (j) of Section 25532 of the Health and Safety Code, that may pose a health or safety • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-6 hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school, unless both of the following occur: 1) The lead agency preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration has consulted with the school district having jurisdiction regarding the potential impact of the Project on the school. 2) The school district has been given written notification of the Project not less than 30 days prior to the proposed certification of the environmental impact report or approval of the negative declaration. b) As used in this section, the following definitions apply: 1) “Extremely hazardous substance” means an extremely hazardous substance as defined pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 25532 of the Health and Safety Code. 2) “Hazardous air emissions” means emissions into the ambient air of air contaminants that have been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the State Air Resources Board or by the air pollution control officer for the jurisdiction in which the Project is located. As determined by the air pollution control officer, hazardous air emissions also mean emissions into the ambient air of a substance identified in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 44321 of the Health and Safety Code. [Amended by Stats. 2008, Ch. 148, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2009] Division of Occupational Safety and Health The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) is responsible for enforcing workplace safety regulations and requirements in California, including hazardous materials requirements recorded under CCR Title 8. These regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, warnings about hazardous substance exposure (such as asbestos), and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. CalOSHA also enforces hazard-communication program regulations that contain training and information requirements. Such requirements include procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating information about hazardous substances and their handling, and preparing health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. Under the hazard- communication program, employers must make Safety Data Sheets available to employees and document employee information and training programs. California Emergency Services Act The California Emergency Services Act provides the basic authority for conducting emergency operations following a proclamation of emergency by the governor and/or appropriate local authorities. Local government and district emergency plans are considered to be extensions of the California Emergency Plan, established in accordance with the Emergency Services Act. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-7 The California Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA) is the state agency responsible for establishing emergency response and spill notification plans related to hazardous materials accidents. CAL EMA regulates businesses by requiring specific businesses to prepare an inventory of hazardous materials (CCR Title 19). CAL EMA is also the lead state agency for emergency management and is responsible for coordinating the state-level response to emergencies and disasters. State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) The Public Utilities Code establishes the requirement for the creation of ALUCs for every county in which there is an airport that is served by a scheduled airline. Additionally, these sections of the Public Utilities Code mandate the preparation of Comprehensive Land Use Plans to provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport. The purpose of Comprehensive Land Use Plans includes the protection of the general welfare of inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the general public. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022, and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below: Safety Element Policy 2A: Coordinate with federal, state, and county hazardous waste management plans to protect the health and welfare of the public, the environment, and the economy of the City of Seal Beach through comprehensive programs that ensure safe and responsible management of hazardous waste and materials. Policy 2B: Implement the measures outline in the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Plan, Orange County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and Hazardous Materials Area Plan, and the County’s Operational Area Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan to ensure the effective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste on a City-wide level. Policy 2C: Support enforcement of state “right to know” laws, which outline the public’s right to information about local toxic producers. Policy 2F: Facilitate coordinated effective response to hazardous materials emergencies in the City to minimize health and environmental risks. Policy 2G: Promote public awareness in hazardous materials emergency response preparedness by any effective informational media, such as Emergency Preparedness • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-8 Newsletter, neighborhood posters, and at least annual presentations at neighborhood association meetings. Policy 2H: Support the combination of the OCFA’s hazardous materials disclosure program. Ensure annual inspections of businesses that generate or use hazardous materials, and identify and monitor any historical hazardous materials sites within the City for public health and safety issues. Policy 2I: Promote public participation and education in the implementation of the programs identified in the County’s Hazardous Materials Management Program. Policy 2J: Encourage OCFA to monitor the flow of hazardous materials through the City to ensure public safety. Policy 2K: Encourage coordination between the OCFA and the Seal Beach Police Department in the designation of routes and enforcement of hazardous materials, routing ordinances, and laws with the I-405 freeway as the primary designated route. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The Seal Beach Municipal Code refers to Section 11.4.60, Hazardous Waste Facilities, which is not applicable to the Project as it does not include hazardous materials related codes that would be applicable to the Project. Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base Airport Environs Land Use Plan The ALUC for Orange County is an agency, established in late 1969, authorized under state law to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Primary areas of concern for ALUCs are noise, safety hazards, and airport operational integrity. Land uses within the airport planning area boundaries are required to conform to safety, height, and noise restrictions established in the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP. The AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB was most recently amended in 2017. 3.8.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP, and online regulatory compliance databases. • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-9 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts are significant. Would the Project: 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 or excessive noise for people rising or working in the project area? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-10 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Nearby Airport Hazard Impact HAZ-1 The Project would not, 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, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Impact Analysis A portion of Seal Beach is within the airport planning area of the Los Alamitos JFTB. As such, land uses within the airport planning area boundaries are required to conform to the noise, safety, and height restrictions established in the AELUP for the JFTB. The City is required to have any proposed General Plan amendments, Specific Plans and Specific Plan amendments, and zoning code amendments submitted to the ALUC for a consistency determination. However, the ALUC’s findings may be overruled by the City Council. Based on a review of the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP, most of the Project, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the portion of the Main Street Specific Plan area located south of Electric Avenue, are located within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Additionally, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB. While the Project does not propose any specific development at this time, ALUC review is required for adoptions of or amendments to a General Plan or Specific Plan; zoning ordinance; master plan for public use airports; and heliports within the airport influence area (Public Utilities Code Sections 21676(b), 21676(c), 21664.5, and 21661.5). The ALUC may find a General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning code amendment to be inconsistent; however, the City has the authority to overrule that finding. The requirement for ALUC review of proposed development projects is contingent on the ALUC finding that the General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning code amendment is not consistent, or a finding that the City has not taken necessary steps to make them consistent (Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5). Future developments proposed under the Project that are located within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB that require any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan and any proposed changes to a zoning ordinance or building regulation would be subject to review by the ALUC. Should a future development project require review by the ALUC, noise, safety, and height of the structures are expected to be the key issues the ALUC would consider. These topics are further discussed in the following subsections. Aircraft Noise Hazards None of the Housing Opportunity Sites, including the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, are within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1 – High Noise Impact) for the Los Alamitos JFTB. However, Housing Opportunity Site 5 and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are located within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact 2 – Moderate Noise Impact). m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-11 According to the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP, residential uses are considered “conditionally consistent” within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour and it is recommended that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated (AEULP 2017). The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP identifies that the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the California Building Code requirements. As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, future developments proposed under the Project that are exposed to existing or projected noise, including aircraft noise, that exceeds noise standards identified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific acoustical study and identify mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element and preparing an acoustical study would minimize potential impacts and ensure that future developments within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies. Similar to the Project, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to the noise level standards and actions in the City’s Noise Element, which include the preparation of an acoustical study or implementation of project-specific mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Aircraft Safety Hazards The AELUP has established Clear Zones, also referred as Runway Protection Zones, located at each end of the runway that are designated as having the potential for extreme crash hazard. The severe potential for loss of life and property due to accidents prohibits most land uses in these areas. No buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones (AELUP 2017). Based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites, including the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, are located within the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB. As such, the Project would not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Height Restrictions Most of the Project, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the portion of the Main Street Specific Plan area located south of Electric Avenue, are located within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Generally, projects within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB that include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above mean sea level require filing with the FAA and review by the ALUC. Based on the proposed zoning districts for the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program), building heights are anticipated to range from two to five stories and therefore filing with the FAA regarding aircraft-related safety hazards is not anticipated. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-12 For any construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above mean sea level, filing with the FAA and review by the ALUC, including filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) would be required. Any development project that would penetrate the FAR Part 77 Notification Surface for the JFTB (notification area) would also be required to file FAA Form 7460-1. Structures that are more than 200 feet tall would be reviewed by the ALUC on a case-by-case basis to ensure development does not result in a safety hazard. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to the maximum height requirements established in the applicable zoning district. Any structures that are more than 200 feet tall or would penetrate the FAR Part 77 Notification Surface for the JFTB would be required to be reviewed by the ALUC. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion In conclusion, the Project and future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area and the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the geographic scope of impacts for hazards is limited to the specific project site. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis and therefore, hazards do not contribute to cumulative impacts. There is m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-13 no specific cumulative development listed in Table 3.0-3 that are driving cumulative impacts related to hazards. However, indirect cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur where regional development patterns place structures and/or people in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions, or where regional patterns develop new cumulatively hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. As stated in Table 3.0-3 of Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, all cumulative developments identified and listed in Table 3.0-3 are residential projects and therefore, would not develop new hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. Hazardous materials utilized during operation of the cumulative developments would be anticipated to be limited to those typical to residential uses and would not be anticipated to require the use of large quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally, all cumulative developments are located within urbanized areas and would not be located on sites that are in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions. Anticipated impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development within and within proximity of the City, may include future development in areas that are at risk of hazards such as from the nearby airport. Similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential adverse site-specific impacts and require mitigation measures as necessary in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. All potential impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. As a result, cumulative impacts related to consistency with policies and regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant, as the Project would be consistent with applicable plans and policies. Therefore, with the implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and existing plans and policies, the Project’s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. 3.8.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed September 2024. Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). 2017. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, Amended August 17, 2017. https://files.ocair.com/media/2021-02/JFTB,LosAlamitos-AELUP2017.pdf. Accessed September 2024. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker. Accessed September 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-1 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for hydrology and water quality. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The impacts are considered less than significant. The Project could alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites by substantially increasing the rate or amount of runoff, create or contribute to runoff water, or impede or redirect flood flow. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which includes site specific analysis and potential improvements which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Project would not result in the release of pollutants from a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. The impacts are considered less than significant. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The impacts are considered less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was considered within the review of potential groundwater, stormwater, and runoff impacts of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Watershed and Regional Drainage A watershed is the geographic area draining into a river system, ocean, or other body of water through a single outlet and includes the receiving waters. The City is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is the most extensive watershed in Orange County, running through a three-county area from its headwaters in the San Bernadino Mountains to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean (Orange County 2015). The Santa Ana River Watershed encompasses approximately 2,700 square miles. The City is located near multiple hydrologic features which include rivers, the Pacific Ocean, and wetlands, which are subject to various sources of pollution within the community. The mouth of the San Gabriel River lies within City limits and drains an area of approximately 700 square miles within Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The San Gabriel River is located along the western boundary of the City. The San Gabriel River originates in Los Angeles County but empties into the ocean at Seal Beach. Additionally, the river provides an outlet for flood control basins and channels within the City. The river is IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-2 a major source of ocean contamination after storm events due to the washing of upstream pollutants and trash into the ocean (City of Seal Beach 2003). Groundwater The City is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin which is located within an area designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1. The basin stores an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water, although only a fraction of this can be sustainably pumped without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or potential land subsidence. The DWR has designated the Orange County Groundwater Basin as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. Sources of groundwater recharge for the Basin include Santa Ana River base flow, storm flow, imported water, recycled water, incidental recharge, and in-lieu programs (OCWD 2015). Water Quality The mouth of the San Gabriel River is located within the City limits, which drains an area of approximately 700 square miles within Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the Pacific oceanfront, and various wetlands areas that are subject to various sources of pollution within the community (City of Seal Beach 2003). Within the City, the Bolsa Chica Channel also drains into Anaheim Bay, which is in the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station between the Coastal District and Surfside Colony. It links the salt marshlands with the ocean and serves as a major drainage channel (City of Seal Beach 2003). Pollutants could be present in stormwater runoff, including sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses. Stormwater runoff is the principal source of pollution entering surface and ground water in the region. Typical pollutants include oil, grease, or antifreeze releases from cars or trucks; paint or paint products; leaves or yard waste; pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers from yards and gardens; solvents and household chemicals; animal wastes, litter, or sewer leakage; and construction debris such as fresh concrete, mortar, or cement. Flooding Seal Beach lies along the Pacific Ocean and can be subject to coastal flooding, which occurs when water levels rise high enough to inundate areas that are normally dry. This typically occurs during a storm or during high tides (City of Seal Beach 2018). Flood hazard zones are identified on official Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City has designated various flood hazard zones ranging from areas of reduced flood risk due to levees to areas with high-risk flood hazards. Specifically, the City includes FEMA Zone VE, Zone AE, Zone D, and Zone X (FEMA 2019). Zones VE and AE are special flood hazard areas that are high risks with a 25 percent chance of flooding during a 30-year period. Zone IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-3 D are areas where flooding is possible, but the flood hazard is either undetermined or unstudied. Zone X are areas with moderate to low risks of floods (FEMA 2023). The areas most vulnerable to 100-year floods are located adjacent to the San Gabriel River and the flood control channels, the main beach, the southeastern end of Electric Avenue, and parts of the Old Ranch Golf Course. The College Park East neighborhood is also susceptible to flooding during winter storms. The College Park East neighborhood drains to the Old Ranch Country Club Golf Course. The Seal Beach 2018 Evacuation Plan identified the following areas in the City as potential flooding areas (City of Seal Beach 2018): • Parts of downtown/Old Town Seal Beach, including the Pacific Coast Highway near Seal Beach Blvd, the Pacific Coast Highway near 5th Street, 1st Street, Ocean Avenue, Seal Way, Main Street, and Marina Drive; • The area around Leisure World, including Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Blvd; • The Pacific Coast Highway near the San Gabriel River; • The College Park East neighborhood in northern Seal Beach, adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos, and including I-405 and the northern parts of Seal Beach Blvd; • The College Park West neighborhood near the San Gabriel River and I-405; and • The Bridgeport area. While not identified in the Seal Beach 2018 Evacuation Plan as a potential flooding area, the Surfside Neighborhood has experienced flooding in recent years during high tide and strong ocean swells. Surfside is located along the Pacific Ocean and Pacific Coast Highway, immediately south of Anaheim Bay. Seiches and Tsunamis Tsunamis are seismic sea waves generated by large submarine earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or large submarine landslides. Seiches are stationary oscillations of enclosed or partly enclosed bodies of water caused by landslides, sudden changes in atmospheric and wind pressure or earthquakes. According to the City’s General Plan, seismically induced seiches are not considered a potential hazard. The tsunami hazard is considered to be low for the elevations above the principal sea bluff in the City. Areas on the beach or below the sea bluff are considered to have moderate tsunami hazard, depending on tidal conditions and their elevation with respect to sea level (City of Seal Beach 2003). The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated a seven-to-eight-foot potential run-up for the coastal area. Assuming a coincidental highest tide, areas below the 16-to-17-foot contour level could be inundated by a tsunami. The chance of this occurring appears to be low based on existing data; but if an earthquake happened along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of a much higher inundation level could be expected (City of Seal Beach 2003). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-4 Sea Level Rise The City is located along the shoreline and is susceptible to the effects of sea level rise (SLR). The coastal reach between the San Gabriel River and Anaheim Bay jetties encompasses West Beach, the Seal Beach Municipal Pier and East Beach. This is the center of beach-related activity in Seal Beach due to the accessibility and proximity to Main Street, residential development and visitor serving amenities. According to the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment prepared by the City, this area is currently exposed to coastal erosion, wave run-up and flooding during extreme events. SLR has the potential to increase these hazards impacting the recreational beach areas, amenities and residential development. The Surfside Community, south of Anaheim Bay, is also exposed to the open coast and associated process of coastal erosion, wave run-up and flooding during extreme events. Located downcoast of a complete littoral barrier formed by the Anaheim Bay jetties, this segment of shoreline is particularly vulnerable to erosion and dependent on regular nourishment from the USACE to maintain a sandy beach in front of residential development. Inland low-lying areas of Seal Beach are also susceptible to potential flooding from SLR in combination with high tides and fluvial events from sources such as the San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Wetlands and Anaheim Bay (City of Seal Beach 2019). According to the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, for the 2050 time horizon the “likely range” of SLR is between 0.5 to 1.0 feet with an estimated 66 percent probability that SLR will fall within this “likely range”. The likely range of SLR at the 2100 time horizon is 1.3 to 3.2 feet for a high emissions scenario (City of Seal Beach 2019). 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Federal Clean Water Act The federal CWA (33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). Section 401 of the CWA regulates surface water quality, and a Water Quality Certification is required for federal actions (including construction activities) that may result in impacts to surface water. In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine RWQCBs. The Project is located within Region 8, regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The NPDES permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and non-point source stormwater runoff. NPDES IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-5 permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions of discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring and other activities. Developers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres are required to file a notice on intent to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) which must be completed before construction begins. The SWPPP should contain a site map that shows the construction site perimeter; existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, and stormwater collection and discharge points; general topography both before and after construction; and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list best management practices the discharger will use to manage stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. State California Coastal Act The State of California passed the California Coastal Act in 1976 which created protections over the State’s coastal zones to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, ocean resources, and the natural environment from deterioration and destruction from existing and future development. Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State of California established the SWRCB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs, through the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). Through the enforcement of Porter-Cologne, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the State, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the RWQCB, are authorized to prescribe Waste Discharge Requirements for the discharge of waste, which may impact waters of the State. Furthermore, the development of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, is required by Porter-Cologne to protect water quality. The SWRCB issues both General Construction Permits and Individual Permits under the auspices of the federal NPDES program. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues for the state. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the state by the federal government under the CWA. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The City of Seal Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8). The Santa Ana RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-6 Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) which includes the water quality standards (water quality objectives, beneficial uses, and anti-degradation policy) for the Region, regionally important water quality management and improvement initiatives, policies and practices for implementing water quality standards, and implementation plans. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is a three-bill package that passed the California state legislature and was signed into California state law by Governor Jerry Brown in September 2014. SGMA establishes a framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California and requires local agencies to bring over drafted basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge The DWR uses the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Model Priority List to rank groundwater basins across the state according to priority levels of high, medium, low, or very low, and SGMA specifies deadlines for completion of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) in order of basin priority. Under SGMA, high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, must establish GSPs in order of basin priority. Under SGMA, high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, must establish Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that oversee the preparation and implementation of a local GSP. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to hydrology and water quality are presented below: Safety Element • Policy 2N: Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm drain systems through construction upgrades and operation and maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate the flow of sewage into the City storm drains. • Policy 2O: Facilitate coordination and participation by all of the jurisdictions that make up the Los Angeles and Santa Ana RWQCBs to improve water quality. Encourage the elimination of sewer discharges and non-point source pollution into the San Gabriel River. • Policy 2S: Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increase in pollutant loads and flows, ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat, minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and the MS4s, and maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allows more percolation of storm water into the ground. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-7 • Policy 2U: Encourage the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed-scale retrofits, etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible. • Policy 2V: Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site. • Policy 2W: Establish development guidelines for areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 9.45, Floodplain Management. The chapter’s purpose is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions by legally enforceable regulations applied uniformly throughout the community to all publicly and privately-owned land within flood prone, mudslide, or flood related erosion areas. The chapter includes provisions of methods of reducing flood losses and specific standards related to construction and development within areas of the City 3.9.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant hydrology and water quality impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The evaluation of potential hydrologic and water quality impacts was based on a review of City documents, including the General Plan. Mapping tools provided by FEMA were also reviewed. The information obtained from these sources is summarized to establish existing conditions and to identify potential environmental effects. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the Project would comply with relevant federal, state, and local ordinances and regulations. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s impacts to hydrology and water quality are significant. Would the Project: • Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-8 • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flood on or offsite; o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff; or o Impede or redirect flood flows? • In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Groundwater Impact HYD-1 The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impact Analysis A significant impact would occur if future developments under the Project resulted in a net reduction in the groundwater supply or lower the groundwater table. As noted in Section 3.9.1, Environmental Setting, the City is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin which is located within an area designated by the DWR as Basin 8-1. The DWR has designated the Orange County Groundwater Basin as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. Sources of groundwater recharge for the Basin include Santa Ana River base flow, storm flow, imported water, recycled water, incidental recharge, and in-lieu programs (OCWD 2015). Future IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-9 development facilitated by the Project would likely be located within developed areas of the City and would not be anticipated to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the entirety of the Main Street Program area are located on sites that are developed with existing uses or have been developed with impervious surfaces and therefore, the sites for potential future development would not be identified as an area with high groundwater recharge potential. However, Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are undeveloped and contain pervious surfaces. Therefore, there is some potential for the site to provide opportunities for groundwater recharge. However, as identified in OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan, the Santa Ana River base flow and recycled water are the largest sources of groundwater recharge for the basin (OCWD 2015). This site is an extremely small site area compared to the OC Basin and not within the basin recharge areas, therefore this Housing Opportunity Site would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge potential. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix G). As identified in the WSA, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area have existing structures that have existing water uses. These existing water demands were part of the City’s and Golden State Water Company’s (GSWC) demand analysis in their respective 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, the WSA calculated the additional demand that would result at these sites from buildout of the Project. It should be noted that Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor is anticipated to be served by GSWC West Orange Service Area. The remaining seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would be served by the City of Seal Beach. The Housing Element Update plans for up to 1,339 new dwelling units in the City by 2029 to accommodate its RHNA allocation of 1,243 units. However, the assumed residential development potential of the Housing Element Update is developed using conservative assumptions that would develop the Housing Opportunity Sites below the maximum allowable density. For the purposes of analysis contained in this EIR, a more intense level of development (maximum buildout) was analyzed so that potential impacts resulting from projects that might propose maximum developable densities are considered as part of this EIR. Therefore, the analysis contained herein as well as the analysis contained in the WSA assumed maximum buildout under the Project. The WSA compared the percentage increase in water demand over a 25-year period due to the Project for a normal year and the highest demand from the five-year period of multiple dry years as a worst-case scenario for portions of the Project served by the City of Seal Beach and GSWC. As shown in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the maximum buildout scenario of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would result in a total additional water demand of 405-acre feet per year (AFY). This includes 139 AFY for Housing Opportunity Site 4 – the Shops at Rossmoor served by GSWC and 266 AFY for the remaining seven Housing Opportunities Sites and the Main Street Program served by the City of Seal Beach. This equates to 139 AFY above the projected demands for a normal water year in 2030 established in the GSWC West Orange Service Area 2020 UWMP. Regarding the City’s portion of the Project, for the remaining 7 Housing Opportunities Sites and the Main Street Program, an additional supply of 266 AFY is required above the projected demands for a normal water year in 2030 established in the City’s 2020 UWMP. For multiple dry-years, the total additional water demand of 435 AFY, which equates to 282 AFY above the City’s 3,570 AFY projected for the fifth dry year in 2030 and 153 AFY above GSWC’s 16,330 AFY projected for the fifth dry year in 2030. Based on IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-10 the estimated additional water required for the Project, an approximate 8 percent and 1 percent increase in supply for the City and GSWC, respectively, is needed to meet these demands. As identified in the WSA, both the City’s 2020 UWMP and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP project that after 2025, the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) will be set at 85 percent. This means that the water portfolio for each retail water supplier will be composed of 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water. As part of the OCWD’s Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. OCWD assesses the basin annually and sets a BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the City’s total water demand that comes from groundwater. Per OCWD Groundwater Management Plan and Basin 8-1 Alternative, the BPP is based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET), the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors (OCWD 2017). Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish a Replenishment Assessment (RA) based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) fee. OCWD forecasts that the basin would be able to sustain a BPP of 85 percent beyond 2025 to meet demands from groundwater producers (City of Seal Beach 2021). Since the BPP is established annually by OCWD’s assessment of the OC Basin, the BPP is subject to change. For this analysis, the BPP is assumed to be held at 85 percent through 2045. The City’s projected water supplies along with GSWC West Orange Service Area’s projected water supplies, identified in the respective 2020 UWMPs, would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project. However, the City and GSWC would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Moreover, since imported MET water purchases through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the BPP within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination, the future developments constructed as a result of the Project would start being incorporated into this agency coordination as the future developments under this Project came online. Therefore, the estimated Project demands would start being incorporated as the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program were built out. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for both the City and GSWC the following year that future developments under the Project is developed. With the assumption that BPP is set at 85 percent, an 8 percent increase in demands for the City, or 282 AF during dry years, would require ground water pumping of 240 AF and purchasing of 42 AF from imported sources by the City. With an additional 1 percent increase in demand for GSWC, or 153 AFY during dry years, 130 AFY of groundwater and 23 AFY of imported water would be required by GSWC to meet these demands. This is a total increase in demand of 435 AFY during dry year, which represents approximately IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-11 a 0.1 percent increase in total groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the total estimated average water purchased from MWDOC for retail sales. For any demands beyond the annual estimates within the City’s and GSWC West Orange’s service area, the City would have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA. The other option would be to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. It should be noted that Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, would receive water distribution service from GSWC. This has been accounted for in the additional demand from the Project shown in the supply and demand analysis described in the WSA, which concluded that there would be adequate water supplies available to the City of Seal Beach and GSWC serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The WSA determined that the maximum buildout scenario of the seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program served by the City would result in an additional water demand of 266 AFY (1,054 dwelling units) for a normal water year. Scaling to the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, the additional 167 units would result in an additional water demand of 42 AFY for a total of 308 AFY above the projected demands established in the City’s 2020 UWMP. With the additional demands associated with the Project, the City would require additional water supplies to be able to meet the City’s projected overall demand. As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project and the residential component of the ORCC, an approximate 9.3 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. With the BPP set at 85 percent, additional demands of 308 AF would require ground water pumping of 262 AF and purchasing of 46 AF from imported sources for the City. This represents approximately a 0.12 percent increase in groundwater production over the estimated annual average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the estimated annual average MET water purchased for retail sales. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. For any demands beyond the annual estimates, the City and/or GSWC may have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA. The other option would be to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. Though the Project itself does not propose any specific developments at this time and approval of this Project would not result in the construction of new development, the Project would facilitate the ability for new developments to be proposed and constructed within the City. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-12 may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Drainage Pattern Impact HYD-2 The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; ii) 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; or iii) Impede or redirect flood flows. Impact Analysis Site-specific drainage reports to evaluate hydrological impacts would be prepared as individual developments are proposed on individual Housing Opportunity Sites. However, the development of some of the Housing Opportunity Sites may result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns of the site or area and have potential adverse effects on existing surface drainage patterns caused by the creation of new impervious surfaces. These would be minimized through the required construction and post- construction stormwater controls and measures for minimizing erosion and stormwater runoff. Full buildout of future developments resulting from Project implementation could potentially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff and could create flood hazards. As identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are within areas already developed with existing uses; therefore, development of these sites and areas with uses would not result in a substantial increase in runoff and are required to be designed to not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new developments related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, future development resulting from Project implementation would IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-13 be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. All future developments would also be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit related to preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs during the construction period to ensure that polluted runoff does not leave the site and enter the storm drainage system. However, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified sites may result in flooding related impacts due to the existing drainage system in the City not providing adequate capacity. The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites as well as the Main Street Program area are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone X with reduced flood risk due to levees and therefore, is not anticipated to result in impeding or redirecting flood flows. However, a small portion of Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center is located within an area identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Therefore, the development of Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center could result in the new development impeding or redirecting flood flows and result in an impact. Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center would be required to be designed per the FEMA flood zone requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would also be located within FEMA Zone AE, see below. General Plan Policy 5G states the City will review and update the Master Plan of Drainage to integrate the drainage systems of the entire City into one plan and include an implementation schedule and priorities for improvements. The City’s Master Plan of Drainage was last updated in 2008, and the plan identifies areas of the City’s storm drainage system which require improvements ranking them from high priority projects to low priority projects. Long-range improvement needs as documented in the City’s Master Plan of Drainage are prioritized and budgeted into the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City‘s CIP would be used as a management tool to facilitate the planning and construction of specific projects such as storm drainage improvement projects. As outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, future development projects facilitated by the Project shall be required to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impact the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As potential Housing Opportunity Sites are proposed in all areas of the City, each proposed project would have varying drainage patterns. Future development projects would be required to design and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with City standards and requirements. For potential development within identified flood zones, the development structures and associated storm drainage system would be required to be designed and constructed to meet FEMA flood zone requirements. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-14 As the City already has existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City, future development projects facilitated by the Project could contribute to the existing issues and could result in increased impacts. Therefore, the Project identified Mitigation Measure HYD-1 to reduce potential impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure that potential impacts to storm drainage systems from future development projects facilitated by the Project are analyzed and mitigated. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan is located within FEMA Flood Zone AE and has a moderate risk of flooding that would be evaluated within its own standalone EIR. Additionally, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H) and requirements for preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirement for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost shall be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-15 Project Inundation Impact HYD-3 The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Impact Analysis The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites as well as the Main Street Program area are located within areas identified as Zone X with reduced flood risk due to levees. Therefore, these sites would not be located in a flood hazard zone and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. However, a small portion of Housing Opportunity Site 5 is located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Additionally, due to the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City is at risk of tsunamis. The City’s General Plan Safety Element identified that the risk of inundation by a tsunami appears to be low; however, if an earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of high inundation level could be expected (City of Seal Beach 2003). The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 9.45, Floodplain Management, includes provisions of methods of reducing flood losses and specific standards related to construction and development within areas of the City. Sites in identified flood areas are required to adhere to the development specifications in City’s Municipal Code Section 9.45.08, Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction. This Municipal Code section provides standards of construction in areas of special flood hazards, standards for utilities, and standards for different proposed developments and floodways. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements would reduce impacts of flooding on future development projects facilitated by the Project to less than significant. Future development of identified Housing Opportunity Sites as well as new developments within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project may be subject to subsequent individual environmental review to analyze its potential impacts related to flood risk. As all future development projects would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards, the future developments would be anticipated to be constructed to withstand any potential flooding impacts and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. Future developments located in flood risk or tsunami risk areas would be anticipated to be constructed to be located above the anticipated flood elevation. Seiches are stationary oscillations of enclosed or partly enclosed bodies of water caused by landslides, sudden changes in atmospheric and wind pressure or earthquakes. As identified in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, seismically induced seiches are not considered a potential hazard for the City. With minimal potential for inundation by flood, low likelihood of inundation by tsunamis, and no potential for inundation by a seiche, there would be little potential for future development sites to release pollutants into water resulting from inundation. Additionally, future development projects located within flood zones would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s flood hazard reduction standards and requirements which would reduce potential impacts. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to releasing pollutants during inundation of future project sites. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-16 inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan is located within FEMA Flood Zone AE and has a moderate risk of flooding that would be evaluated within its own EIR. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards. The future developments would be anticipated to be constructed to withstand any potential flooding impacts and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. Future developments located in flood risk or tsunami risk areas would be anticipated to be constructed to be located above the anticipated flood elevation. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan Impact HYD-4 The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impact Analysis Water Quality Control Plan The City’s water quality control plan is the Basin Plan prepared by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Future residential developments facilitated by the Project would be required to implement and comply with the Basin Plan to ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Additionally, the City has adopted regulations and requirements related to protection of water quality. Construction activities related to future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 9.30, Storm Water Management Program, of the City’s Municipal Code which includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, construction of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. Any projects that include one acre or greater of soil disturbance would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and associated NPDES regulations. Additionally, future development associated with Project implementation would be required to comply with all relevant NPDES requirements and would be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of control necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. To prevent long-term impacts related to operation, new developments resulting from the Project would be required to comply with City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-17 management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development does not impact water quality. Implementation of City standards and requirements would ensure that future developments comply with the Basin Plan. With adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, runoff associated with both construction and regular operation of future developments facilitated by the Project would not violate any water quality control standards or any water quality control plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan The City is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin which is located within an area designated by the DWR as Basin 8-1. The DWR has designated the Orange County Groundwater Basin as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. In 2014, the State of California adopted the SGMA to support and manage its groundwater sustainably and mitigate significant low groundwater levels, land subsidence, and water quality issues. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, be sustainably managed. To comply with the SGMA, the agencies within Basin 8-1, led by OCWD submitted an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan in 2017, titled the “Basin 8-1 Alternative”. As identified in the OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan, sources of groundwater recharge for the Basin include Santa Ana River base flow, storm flow, imported water, recycled water, incidental recharge, and in-lieu programs (OCWD 2015). As the majority of the Housing Opportunity Site and the Main Street Program area are developed with existing uses including existing impervious surfaces, future development projects facilitated by the Project on these sites are not anticipated to interfere with groundwater recharge and would not conflict with the OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan. However, the City relies on groundwater and imported water for sources of potable water. The Project would increase the City’s water demands and therefore would require more pumping of the groundwater basin. OCWD collects samples and analyzes water elevation and water quality data to ensure a safe and sustainable level of groundwater production is established (OCWD 2015). The OCWD monitors the groundwater supply and operates the basin in accordance with an identified safe operating range which ensures that the basin is not over pumped leading to potential impacts such as seawater intrusion and land subsidence. As identified above under Impact HYD-1, future development projects facilitated by the Project could result in increased groundwater pumping, but not above the safe operating range for the basin and therefore would not conflict with sustainable management of the basin. Any future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the goals and objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan to ensure that construction and operation of the future IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-18 project would not result in groundwater impacts. As future developments would be anticipated to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations and requirements as well as incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimize potential water quality impacts which would ensure that future developments follow the Basin Plan. Additionally, development within the City would be required to comply with the goals and objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the extent of the watersheds located in Seal Beach, as described above under Section 3.9.1, Environmental Setting. This geographic scope is appropriate for hydrology and water quality because water quality impacts are localized in the watershed where the impact occurs. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.9-1 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-19 Table 3.9-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Hydrology and Water Quality # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-20 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) site for potential future residential development 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.9-1 could increase stormwater runoff such that water quality impacts could occur. The cumulative projects listed within Table 3.9-1 are located within the Santa Ana watershed, the geographic scope of this analysis. Projects located in other watersheds would not impact the hydrology or water quality within the City and therefore were not evaluated below. For example, Long Beach lies within the San Gabriel watershed and, as a result, those projects would not contribute to cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts in combination with the Project and were not included in this evaluation. The Naval Weapons Station and Water Storage Site are in FEMA Zone D and are in areas that are known to flood according to the City of Seal Beach 2018 Evacuation Plan. The Lampson Project is also located within FEMA Zone D and would drain to the City. The Orange County and Westminster Housing Element Sites are in FEMA Zone X and, therefore, would have a low risk of flooding. The ORCC Specific Plan Project is in FEMA Zone AE and includes the ORCC golf course that serves as a drainage basin for the City. Development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would reconfigure the drainage basin. However, new development and redevelopment within the City would be subject to City, state, and federal policies and ordinances, design, guidelines, the Zoning Code, and other applicable regulatory requirements that reduce impacts related to water quality on a project-by-project basis. Overall, implementation of the Project and cumulative developments would not substantially increase the total area of impervious surface in the area; would not result in substantial groundwater use within the entire groundwater basin or affect groundwater recharge; and would not modify the course of an existing stream or river. Required conformance with state and local policies and regulations would reduce hydrology and IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-21 water quality impacts associated with future cumulative development. The anticipated Project related impacts from future housing development facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would include increased development in a previously developed area (changes in impermeable surfaces) and could result in impacts to water quality. Potential impacts concerning hydrology and water quality would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed including in accordance with the Housing Element Update. As required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, each cumulative project may require separate discretionary permit approval and development subject to CEQA would address potential hydrology and water quality impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, future housing development facilitated by the Project and cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative impacts concerning violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, decreased groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, alterations to existing drainage patterns, or conflicts with water quality or groundwater plans. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning hydrology and water resources. 3.9.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed August 2024. _____. 2018. Evacuation Plan. https://sealbeachpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Evacuation-Plan- 2018.pdf. Accessed March 2025. _____. 2019. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. PDF. City of Seal Beach. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final Draft, June 2021. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.05.27.pdf?ver=2021-06-01-161424-263. Accessed August 2024. _____. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793. Accessed October 2024. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address – Seal Beach, City of. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Seal%20Beach%2C%20California. Accessed March 2025. _____. 2023. FEMA Flood Maps and Zones Explained. https://www.fema.gov/blog/fema-flood-maps-and- zones-explained. Accessed March 2025. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-22 Golden State Water Company. 2020. West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680% 2FGSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf. Accessed March 2025. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. https://www.ocwd.com/wp- content/uploads/groundwatermanagementplan2015update_20150624.pdf. Accessed October 2024. _____. 2017. Basin 8-1 Alternative. https://ocwd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/basin-8-1- alternative-final-report-1.pdf. Accessed October 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-1 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for land use and planning. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to land use and planning that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not result in conflicts with existing City regulations, policies, and plans adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant. Development of the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require adoption of the ORCC Specific Plan and rezoning of the site from the existing Recreational Golf zoning designation to ORCC Specific Plan, neither of which entitlement is included as part of this Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.10.1 Environmental Setting The City of Seal Beach consists of 11.51 square miles of land area and 1.72 square miles of water area for a total of 13.23 square miles. Table 3.10-1 provides an overview of the land use categories within the City as they were inventoried at the time of the General Plan adoption in 2003. As noted, Table 3.10-1 provides an inventory of the land use categories within the City as of 2003 when the last General Plan was adopted. Additional development has occurred within the City since the inventory was taken and therefore, the table may not provide an exact representation of the current existing land use categories within the City. However, the table is provided to show an estimate of how land use categories within the City are distributed. The City has varied range of density with different zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance includes residential zoning districts, commercial districts, industrial district, public and semi-public facilities districts, and open space district. Table 3.10-2 lists the zone district and land uses allowed in each district. Table 3.10-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Type Acreage 2003 Land Use Type Acres Percent of Total Land Area Residential Low 353.7 5.0 Medium 505.4 7.1 High 166.4 2.3 Commercial Professional Office 16.4 0.2 Service 49.3 0.7 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-2 Land Use Type Acres Percent of Total Land Area General 93.4 1.3 Industrial Light 117.0 1.6 Oil Extraction 54.6 0.8 Open Space Open Space 42.7 0.6 Golf Course 156.8 2.2 Wetlands & Wildlife Refuge 1,020.0 14.3 Park 65.4 0.9 School 15.3 0.2 Community Facility 61.8 0.9 Military 4,336.0* 60.8 Beach 80.3 1.1 Total 7,134.5 100 * does not include Wildlife Refuge Table 3.10-2: Summary of City of Seal Beach Zoning Code Base District Designator Base District Name General Uses RLD Single-Unit Residential Single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density of up to 15 dwelling units per net acre. RMD Medium-Density Residential Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single- unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. RHD High-Density Residential Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. LC-RMD Limited Commercia/Residential Medium Density Zone Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. PO Professional Office Office, medical and related uses that may also serve as a buffer area between residential areas and more intensive commercial areas. MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Visitor-serving and resident-serving office, retail, restaurant, and personal service uses with upper floors devoted to office uses along Main Street. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-3 Base District Designator Base District Name General Uses SC Service Commercial Neighborhood-serving commercial areas that provide retail, restaurant, and personal service uses. GC General Commercial Sub-regional and regional centers of commercial activity and may include both pedestrian- and auto- oriented development. Other typical uses are auto service stations, auto repair, and sale. LM Light Manufacturing Sites in a business park environment for moderate- to low- intensity commercial services and light manufacturing uses. OE Oil Extraction Oil extraction and related production storage and processing, maintenance facilities, and related operational and maintenance facilities. PC Public and Semi-Public Appropriate public uses, including private utilities (electrical, gas, water, and telecommunications), schools (both private and public), and other city, county, state, or federal facilities. RG Recreational Golf Golf courses and associated club houses, maintenance facilities, accessory concession sales, and related plant nurseries. OS-N Open Space – Natural To preserve publicly owned parklands, environmentally sensitive lands and habitats in their natural state. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that maintain the property in its natural state. OS-PR Open Space – Parks and Recreation To provide appropriately located areas for recreation and recreational uses. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that are devoted to public recreation including parks, playgrounds, swimming centers, tennis and basketball courts, golf courses, community centers within the facilities, and accessory concession sales. IJ 3.10-4 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting State General Plans The land use planning and zoning authority of local jurisdictions in California is set forth in the state’s planning laws. California Government Code (GC) Section 65300, et seq. obliges cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of a city or county and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the city’s or county’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics including, at a minimum, land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the city’s or county’s vision for the area. The general plan is a long-range document that typically addresses the physical character of an area over a 20-year period. Although the general plan serves as a blueprint for future development and identifies the overall vision for the planning area, it remains general enough to allow flexibility in the approach taken to achieve the plan’s goals. State Zoning Law The State Zoning Law (California GC Section 65800, et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific district, are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure the land uses designated in the general plan would also be allowable by the zoning ordinance (California GC Section 65860, sub.[c]). Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022, and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to land use are presented below: Housing Element Update The following Housing Element Update policies related to land use and planning apply to the Project: Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-5 • Policy 1a: Provide adequate sites for a variety of housing types through the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, while ensuring that environmental and infrastructure constraints are addressed. • Policy 1b: Where appropriate, encourage the redesignation of vacant and underutilized non- residential land to residential uses with appropriate densities to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to address the housing needs of all economic segments of the population. • Policy 1c: Encourage the infilling of vacant residential land. • Policy 1d: Encourage the recycling of underutilized residential land, where such recycling is consistent with established land use plans. • Policy 1e: Provide compatibility of residential uses with surrounding uses through the separation of incompatible uses, construction of adequate buffers, and other land use controls. • Policy 1f: Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems. • Policy 1g: Provide for adequate, freely accessible open space within reasonable distances of all community residents. Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households. • Policy 2a: Expand housing opportunities for households with special needs, including the elderly, persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, large households, female-headed households, and the homeless. • Policy 2b: Provide incentives to encourage the development of new affordable housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including extremely-low-income persons. • Policy 2c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to expand housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, including persons with special needs. • Policy 2d: Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are: o located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities; o adequately served by public utilities; o adequately served by police and fire protection; o minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or other environmental constraints; and o outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-6 Goal 3: Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. • Policy 3a: Assist City residents in securing decent safe and affordable housing. • Policy 3b: Conserve the affordability of housing units assisted with public funds through affordability covenants or resale controls. • Policy 3c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to maintain and/or improve the affordability of existing housing units to low- and moderate-income households. Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. • Policy 4a: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible. • Policy 4b: Promote the replacement of any substandard units that cannot be rehabilitated. • Policy 4c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources available to assist in the improvement of residential property. • Policy 4d: Encourage the continued affordability of housing units rehabilitated with public funds. • Policy 4e: Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. • Policy 4f: Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods, preventing the encroachment of incompatible commercial or industrial uses into established neighborhoods. • Policy 4g: Assist residents, wherever possible, in securing decent safe and adequate housing. • Policy 4h: Promote a safe, healthful, aesthetically pleasing environment that strengthens individual and family life. • Policy 4i: Preserve and enhance viable residential neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity. • Policy 4j: Upgrade and improve community facilities and municipal services in keeping with community needs. • Policy 4k: Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety, and aesthetic conditions. • Policy 4l: Periodically reexamine local building and zoning codes for possible amendments to reduce construction costs and processing times without sacrificing basic health and safety considerations. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-7 Goal 5: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, or familial status. • Policy 5a: Promote fair housing practices throughout the community. • Policy 5b: Encourage the development of housing that meets the special needs of disabled and elderly households. • Policy 5c: Promote the provision of housing to meet the needs of families and households of all sizes. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code includes Title 11 Zoning which outlines the zoning designations and permitted uses for various sections of land located within the City. The Zoning Ordinance includes development standards and regulations for specific zoning designations in order to separate incompatible uses and to promote cohesive city planning. 3.10.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant land use and planning impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The analysis of potential land use impacts considers the Project’s consistency with adopted plans and policies that regulate land use, and the Project’s compatibility with surrounding land uses. The determination of consistency with applicable land use policies and ordinances is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions pertaining to the Project site. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address. Evaluations are made to determine whether a project is consistent with such plans. Projects are considered consistent with regulatory plans if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. The intent of the consistency evaluation is to determine if noncompliance with regulatory plans would result in a significant impact. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s impacts to land use and planning are significant. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-8 Would the Project: • Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: • Physically divide an established community? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Conflict with Plans, Policies, or Regulations Impact LU-1 The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impact Analysis The Housing Element Update addresses the state mandate to update the housing element of the local General Plan and accommodate the housing obligation designated by the RHNA. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The Housing Element Update and the RHNA identified the need for 1,243 additional homes in the City, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The Project, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites, would result in increased densification of residential uses. To meet the City’s RHNA obligations, the Housing Element Update has identified eight Housing Opportunity Sites with a developable area of 35.05 acres and the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project to meet the state’s requirements for Seal Beach’s portion of the regional housing need estimates. According to the Housing Element Update, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites have an assumed residential development potential of 1,165 dwelling units. Additionally, because the RHNA projection period for 2021-2029 began on June 30, 2021, housing development that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project that proposes development of 167 new dwelling units is a current pipeline project pending approval that would be credited toward the RHNA. An additional seven ADUs are projected to be constructed within the planning period and would be credited toward the RHNA. The combination of the projected ADUs, pipeline projects, and Housing Opportunity Sites would result in a total residential development potential of 1,339 dwelling units. With an RHNA allocation of 1,243, there would be a surplus of 96 dwelling units or an eight percent buffer over the RHNA. However, the Housing Element assumed a residential development potential of the Housing Opportunity Sites of 1,165 dwelling units using conservative assumptions that would develop the Housing IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-9 Opportunity Sites at below the maximum allowable density. If the eight Housing Opportunity Sites were all developed at 100 percent of the maximum developable density, the two underutilized sites would provide 182 dwelling units and six rezone sites would provide 1,309 dwelling units for a total of 1,491 dwelling units. In addition, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would provide an additional 167 dwelling units and therefore, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project could result in the potential for 1,658 dwelling units. The eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites as well as current pipeline projects pending approval within the City and anticipated ADUs projected to be constructed within the planning period would accommodate the RHNA allocation for the City. Therefore, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the RHNA allocation for the City as the increase in dwelling units would be required in order to meet the state mandated allocation. The Housing Element Update also includes Program 1R (Main Street Program) which commits to modifying the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Project would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. The Main Street Program’s proposed amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan would allow for and permit the development of dwelling units above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. Though development of housing within the Main Street Specific Plan is currently not allowed, with approval of the proposed amendment, the Main Street Specific Plan and the Housing Element’s Main Street Program would be consistent with each other and the Project would not result in a conflict with the Main Street Specific Plan. Additionally, the City adopted Measure Z in 2008 that limited the maximum height of residences in the City’s Old Town area to 25 feet. The Main Street Specific Plan is located within the area governed by Measure Z and therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project within this area would be required to comply with the provisions of Measure Z. City of Seal Beach General Plan As the Housing Element Update is a component of the larger City General Plan, the Housing Element Update has been developed to comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, the goals and policies included in the Housing Element Update are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and further implement the General Plan. With approval and certification of the Housing Element Update, the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the existing General Plan and the Project would not result in a conflict with the General Plan. As shown in Table 3.10-3 below, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The goals and policies included in the table are only those that are applicable to the Project. Additionally, goals and policies included in the Housing Element Update are not included as the Project itself is the Housing Element Update and therefore, is inherently consistent with the Housing Element Update. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-10 Table 3.10-3: City of Seal Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Policy Consistency Land Use Element Population: Despite the minor decrease in City population experienced in the 2000 U.S. Census, the City will continue to provide support for its residents, maintain its infrastructure and provide jobs and housing balance while still maintaining its small town atmosphere. Consistent. The Project would provide new opportunities for housing within the City and would promote housing balance through planning for housing for different income levels and different densities. Housing: It is to be a goal of the City to preserve its low- and medium-density residential character while still providing a wide choice of living accommodations and life styles for its residents. Consistent. As stated above, the Project would provide new opportunities for housing within the City and plans for housing of different income levels and different densities. Cultural Resources Element Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive for cultural resources. Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, all future development proposals facilitated by the Project would be required to assess potential impacts to archaeological resources and would be required to prepare a study conducted by a professional archaeologist. Safety Element Policy 1R: Ensure compliance with the City of Seal Beach with the Notice Requirements for Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,” and with the referral requirements of Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676. Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all future development projects would be required to comply with the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP. Pursuant to state law, the zoning code update will be provided to the Orange County ALUC for review. Policy 2S: Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows, ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat, minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and the MS4s, and maximum the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground. Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with all City regulations and requirements including with City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program, Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, to minimize hydrological impacts. Additionally, site-specific evaluation of hydrological impacts would be required to be prepared as individual residential developments are proposed per individual site. Policy 3A: Require a soils and geology report to be prepared and filed for all development projects as specified in the City’s Municipal Code. Consistent. As outlined in the Project’s Initial Study as well as Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this Draft EIR, future developments resulting from Project implementation would require mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports. Circulation Element Policy: Assess all development projects in order to identify their traffic impacts and require that they pay Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.15, Transportation, new development under the Project I 1 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-11 their fair share of the system improvements necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the project. would need to comply with Transportation Impact Fees which would be collected at the time of building permit. Additionally, individual development proposals under the Housing Element Update would be evaluated individually for consistency with Orange County and City of Seal Beach plans and would be required to undergo assessment to identify their potential traffic impacts. Source: City of Seal Beach General Plan SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 SCAG is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for six counties in Southern California, including Orange County. Connect SoCal 2024 is Southern California’s RTP/SCS. SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal 2024 on April 4, 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range blueprint to guide transportation investments and land-use decisions through 2050 while meeting the requirements of California’s SB 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a SCS to accommodate future population growth and reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks. As shown in Table 3.10-4, the Project would be consistent with the policies of Connect SoCal 2024. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Connect SoCal 2024 and impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.10-4: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis Connect SoCal Policy Consistency Mobility Policy 09: Encourage residential and employment development in areas surrounding existing and planned transit/rail stations. Consistent. The Project would provide new opportunities for housing within areas that are highly urbanized and served by existing transit services. Communities Policy 32: Promote the growth of origins and destinations, with a focus on future housing and population growth, in areas with existing and planned urban infrastructure that includes transit and utilities. Consistent. The Project would promote future housing developments in areas with existing urban infrastructure, including transit and utilities services. Policy 35: Encourage housing development in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic, educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region. Consistent. The City is almost entirely built out and any future housing would be located within highly urbanized areas of the City, located in close proximity to important resources and amenities. Policy 36: Encourage housing development in transit- supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and resilient communities. Consistent. The City is almost entirely built out and therefore, the City is developed with existing transit and walkable communities. The Project’s Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are located within highly urbanized areas and would encourage housing development in already developed areas that are serviced by existing transit and are walkable and connected to nearby commercial and retail areas. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-12 Policy 37: Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region. Consistent. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites would provide for increased opportunities for new residential developments in the City, including construction of affordable housing at various income levels. Implementation of the Main Street Program would provide additional opportunities for the development of dwelling units. Therefore, implementation of the Project would allow the City to meet its RHNA requirements. Additionally, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project identified as a pipeline project would provide additional opportunities for housing within the City. Environment Policy 48: Promote sustainable development and best practices that enhance resource conservation, reduce resource consumption and promote resilience. Consistent. This Draft EIR analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on City resources. As outlined throughout this Draft EIR, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to be constructed and operated in accordance with City requirements including, but not limited to, the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the CALGreen Code for indoor and outdoor water use. Policy 51: Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts. Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.2, Air Quality, and Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas, of this Draft EIR, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and requirements related to hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts resulting from future development projects facilitated by the Project including Mitigation Measure GHG-1 which requires implementation of GHG reduction measures and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 which include measures to reduce hazardous air emissions during construction and operation. Source: Connect SoCal 2024 City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program Additionally, the City is currently preparing a LCP. LCPs are planning documents used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission for the purpose of upholding the California Coastal Act. LCPs contain rules and regulations for future development and protection of coastal resources, by specifying appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses. LCPs conform with the broad requirements of the California Coastal Act and reflect the unique and specific community characteristics of the jurisdiction. Each LCP consists of a Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan. The Land Use Plan designates land use classifications, and goals/policies guiding development (similar in nature to a City’s General Plan, but specifically for the coastal zone). The Local Implementation Plan includes measures to implement the Land Use Plan, typically through the zoning ordinance. As required by Policy 2.2.2-1 of the City’s May 2023 Draft Land Use Plan, any future developments facilitated by the Project and located within the City’s Coastal Zone IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-13 would require a Coastal Development Permit. As outlined by Policy 2.2.2-3 of the City’s May 2023 Draft Land Use Plan, prior to approval of any Coastal Development Permit, the City shall make findings that the proposed development conforms to the policies and regulations contained in the certified Local Coastal Program, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan (City of Seal Beach 2023). Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8 and the Main Street Program area are located within the coastal zone identified in the Draft Land Use Plan (City of Seal Beach 2023). Should development at these sites be proposed prior to certification of an LCP, the Coastal Commission would review development applications to determine consistency with the California Coastal Act. Should the City achieve certification of an LCP, proposed development would need to comply with the regulations, standards, and requirements within the LCP. The Project has been developed in accordance with existing City regulations, policies, and plans and implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with existing City regulations, policies, and plans adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The ORCC Specific Plan Project area is presently identified by the City’s General Plan land use designation as Open Space Golf and is zoned Recreational Golf. The existing zoning designation of the site allows residential development in conjunction with a golf course subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Development of the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require adoption of the ORCC Specific Plan. Additionally, adoption of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in a change from the existing Recreational Golf zoning designation to ORCC Specific Plan. As this EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative land use and planning impacts includes the geographic area of the City of Seal Beach. Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes past, present, and probable IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-14 future projects located within the City that are identified in Table 3.0-2 of Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis. Cumulative development can change the area’s character and land use patterns. While land uses and development patterns are typically established in local land use planning documents specific to jurisdictions, it is important to consider land use changes and how it would influence development pattern in the area as a whole because land uses merge and flow together along jurisdictional boundaries. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.10-5 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to land use and planning and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.10-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Land Use and Planning # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-15 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units community off Anchor Way 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 The cumulative developments identified in Table 3.0-3 of Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, as sites within the Long Beach, Orange County, and Westminster Housing Element has not been included in the list of cumulative developments that are driving cumulative land use and planning impacts as there are no specific development proposals for those sites. The sites are opportunity sites that are being planned for IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Land Use and Planning 3.10-16 development of residential uses in the future and therefore, though those sites may include requiring amendments to the respective land use designations of the sites, project implementation of Long Beach, Orange County, and Westminster Housing Element sites would not result in impacts when considered with the Project as potential buildout would be speculative. Cumulative developments identified in Table 3.10-5 as potentially driving cumulative impacts when considered with the Project include cumulative developments within the City as well as approved developments located directly adjacent to the City as cumulative developments in the immediate vicinity of the City could result in impacts to land use patterns within the City. The Project’s anticipated impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and directly adjacent to the City, would increase the allowance for additional housing stock in already developed areas. Potential land use impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and review under CEQA, which would address any potential land use impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Housing Element Update identifies future implementation actions to increase housing capacity to accommodate the City’s assigned RHNA pursuant to state, regional, and local growth projections. Therefore, future developments that are facilitated by the Housing Element Update in conjunction with cumulative developments would not result in significant land use impacts. Furthermore, unless exempt, future developments pursuant to the Housing Element Update and General Plan would be subject to discretionary permits and CEQA evaluation. Cumulative developments would be reviewed by the City under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as with a state or local plan, ordinance, or regulatory standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing an environmental impact. Any significant conflicts would be mitigated or resolved through the City discretional review and approval. Therefore, the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use and planning. 3.10.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed September 2024. _____. 2023. Draft City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, May 2023. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Seal%20Beach%20LUP_DRAFT%20compre ssed.pdf?ver=2023-05-09-154143-560. Accessed October 2023. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Connect SoCal. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete- 040424.pdf. Accessed February 2025. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-1 3.11 NOISE This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for noise and vibration. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to noise that would result from the implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and the Project impact would be less than significant. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and the Project impact would be less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was considered as part of the construction and operation noise and vibration analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.11.1 Environmental Setting Noise Fundamentals and Terminology Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a Project. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves over a medium such as air or water. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level (SPL) is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an existing sound level. Although the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The perceived loudness of sound is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum, so noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive in a process called A-weighting, written as dB(A) and referred to as A-weighted decibels. There is a strong correlation between A- weighted sound levels and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-2 become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. Table 3.11-1 summarizes typical A- weighted sound levels for different common noise sources. Table 3.11-1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB(A)) Common Indoor Activities Jet flyover at 1,000 Feet Gas lawnmower at 3 Feet Diesel truck at 50 Feet at 50 MPH Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawnmower, 100 Feet Commercial area Heavy traffic at 300 Feet Quiet urban daytime Quiet urban nighttime Quiet suburban nighttime Quiet rural nighttime -110- -100- -90- -80- -70- -60- -50- -40- -30- -20- -10- -0- Rock band Food blender at 3 Feet Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet Normal Speech at 3 Feet Large business office Dishwasher in next room Theater, large conference room (Background) Library Bedroom at night, concert hall (Background) Broadcast/recording studio Source: Caltrans 2013 Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-exceeded sound levels (such as L10, L20), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Ldn and CNEL values often differ by less than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Table 3.11-2 defines sound measurements and other terminology used in this report. Table 3.11-2: Definition of Sound Measurements Sound Measurements Definition Decibel (dB)A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals. A-Weighted Decibel (dB(A)) An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-3 Sound Measurements Definition Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period. Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The equivalent steady state sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy. Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level (Lxx) The sound level exceeded xx % of a specific time period. L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time. L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time. L90 is often considered to be representative of the background noise level in a given area. Day-Night Level (Ldn)The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the A- weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Peak Particle Velocity (Peak Velocity or PPV) A measurement of ground vibration defined as the maximum speed (measured in inches per second) at which a particle in the ground is moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually expressed in inches/second. Frequency: Hertz (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Source: FHWA 2006 With respect to how humans perceive and react to changes in noise levels, a 1 dB(A) increase is imperceptible, a 3 dB(A) increase is barely perceptible, a 5 dB(A) increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dB(A) increase is subjectively perceived as approximately twice as loud. These subjective reactions to changes in noise levels were developed on the basis of test subjects’ reactions to changes in the levels of steady-state pure tones or broadband noise and to changes in levels of a given noise source. These statistical indicators are thought to be most applicable to noise levels in the range of 50 to 70 dB(A), as this is the usual range of voice and interior noise levels. Numerous agencies and municipalities have developed or adopted noise level standards, consistent with these and other similar studies to help prevent annoyance and to protect against the degradation of the existing noise environment. For a point source such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound attenuates based on geometry at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity can change how sound propagates over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a slightly greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1–2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers, such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight between a source and receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance. I 7 ~ I - -I ~ r--- ,-- I - I - I ~ - I - -I L m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-4 Decibel Addition Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. On the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, their combined sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one source produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB(A), two identical sources would combine to produce 73 dB(A). The cumulative sound level of any number of sources can be determined using decibel addition. Vibration Standards Vibration is like noise such that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While related to noise, vibration differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system that is vibrating. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of in/sec PPV. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec PPV). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of in/sec PPV. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 3.11-3 notes the general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is 0.1 PPV for continuous/frequent sources. Table 3.11-4 indicates the threshold for damage to typical residential and commercial structures ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 PPV for continuous/frequent sources. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-5 Table 3.11-3: Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.40 Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seal equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans 2020 Table 3.11-4: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Criteria Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile1 buildings 0.30 0.12 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.20 Older2 residential structure 0.70 0.30 New residential structures 1.2 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50 Notes: Transient sources again create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seal equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 1 A fragile building is considered one where the structural components are weakened due to age, poor construction materials, or significant deterioration, making it susceptible to damage from even minor stress. 2 An older building refers to a structure that has been around for a considerable period of time, regardless of its current structural integrity, with factors like construction materials, maintenance history, and design playing a role in determining its overall condition. Source: Caltrans 2020 The operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving, and other impact devices, such as pavement breakers, create seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the ground and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of this equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance of people to damage of structures. Varying -~ 1~ - ,-- I - I r--- I ~ I L __ _ J I -----i ~ I - - I - I - I I ~ I I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-6 geology and distance will result in different vibration levels containing different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes will decrease with increasing distance. Perceptible groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. Table 7-4, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, in the 2018 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) lists vibration source levels for the construction equipment most likely to generate high levels of ground vibration. The equipment listed in the FTA table includes impact and sonic pile drivers, clam shovel drops, hydromills, vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large and small bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers. Table 3.11-5 below summarizes typical reference vibration levels generated by select construction equipment. Table 3.11-5: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPVref at 25 Feet Pile Driver (Impact)1.518 – Upper Range 0.644 - Typical Vibratory roller 0.210 Large bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 Source: FTA 2018 Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance and is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil conditions through which the vibration is traveling. The following equation can be used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions (FTA 2018). “PPVref” is the reference PPV from Table 5 and “Distance” is the distance between the source and the receptor: PPV = PPVref x (25/Distance)1.5 Existing Project Setting Mobile Sources The predominant noise source in the City of Seal Beach originates from the movement of motor vehicles on roadways. While some of the noise comes from the engine and exhaust, at higher speeds tires and wind noise predominate. Several major arterial roadways pass through the City, including the San Diego Freeway (I-405), the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605), the Garden Grove Freeway (SR 22), Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1), and arterial roadways. These major roadways bisect residential, commercial, public, and industrial areas, therefore mobile sources along these routes means that noise levels from traffic are audible throughout areas of the City. -I 1- -- - - - - -- - L--~ l J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-7 The City of Seal Beach also encompasses the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach in the southeast half of the City. The base has “evolved into the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading and maintenance installation. Under the station's primary tenant, the Navy Munitions Command, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and medium-sized amphibious assault ships are loaded with missiles, torpedoes, countermeasures devices and conventional ammunition at the facility’s 1,100 foot-long pier. Personnel also perform maintenance on some weapons systems. An average of 40 vessels are loaded or unloaded each year. The weapons station services a majority of the U.S. Pacific Fleet” (United States Navy 2024). In addition, noise levels within the City are affected by overflights from military aircraft from the Los Alamitos JFTB and from civilian aircraft from the Long Beach Airport. The Los Alamitos JFTB aircraft flights occur over residential and other noise sensitive land uses within the City. The CNEL contours from the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study for the Los Alamitos JFTB are contained within the Noise Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Some residential noise sensitive areas north of I-405 experience aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. Also as noted in the City of Seal Beach General Plan, the 65 CNEL noise contour for Long Beach Airport is located approximately three miles outside the City of Seal Beach boundary. Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the Long Beach Airport will not have a significant impact on residential and other noise sensitive land uses within the City. Other mobile sources within Seal Beach include trucks, cars, motorcycles, buses, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and other portable maintenance equipment. These are considered typical sounds of a city and are regulated by the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 7.15) and the Noise Element in the City’s General Plan (City of Seal Beach 2003, 2024). Fixed Noise Sources Stationary sources of noises may occur from all types of land uses. Residential uses would generate noise from primarily air conditioning systems. Commercial and industrial uses would generate noise from heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, loading docks and other sources. Stationary equipment often generates noise on a continual basis due to the functioning of the equipment. Other common noise sources from fixed locations includes nightclubs, outdoor dining areas, gas stations, car washes, fire stations, drive-throughs, swimming pool pumps, school playgrounds, athletic and music events, and public parks. Existing Vibrations Commercial and industrial operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-8 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Generally, the federal government sets standards for transportation-related noise sources closely linked to interstate commerce, including aircraft, locomotives, and trucks. The state government sets standards for transportation noise sources such as automobiles, light trucks, and motorcycles. Noise sources associated with industrial, commercial, and construction activities are generally subject to local control through noise ordinances and general plan policies. Local general plans identify general principles intended to guide and influence development plans. Federal Federal Highway Administration Proposed federal or federal-aided highway construction projects at a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes, require an assessment of noise and consideration of noise abatement per 23 CFR Part 772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for sensitive receivers—such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals—when “worst-hour” noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq (Caltrans 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In addition to FHWA standards, the EPA has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA determined that over a 24-hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. These levels are relevant to planning and design and useful for informational purposes, but they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community; therefore, they are not mandated. The EPA also set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as the difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set the goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding (this level is also generally accepted within the State of California). Although HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings typically provides 20 dBA or more of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-9 Occupational Health and Safety Administration The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the EPA. Noise limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is therefore not addressed further in this analysis. State California Building Code Part 2, Title 24 of the CCR California Noise Insulation Standards establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under Section 1207.11, Exterior Sound Transmission Control, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 dB(A) Ldn in any habitable room. Where such residences are located in an environment where exterior noise is 60 dB(A) Ldn or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure interior levels do not exceed the 45 dB(A) Ldn interior standard. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the building must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment. California Green Building Standards CalGreen establishes interior noise insulation standards for non-residential occupied buildings, such as office buildings. The CalGreen code also applies to occupied non-residential spaces within a multi-family residential building, such as community rooms, offices, etc. CalGreen Section 5.507, Environmental Comfort, states the following: 5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet a composite sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 in the following locations: Within the 65 CNEL noise contour of an airport Exceptions: Ldn or CNEL for military airports shall be determined by the facility Air Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (AICUZ) plan. Ldn or CNEL for other airports and heliports for which a land use plan that has not been developed shall be determined by the local general plan noise element. Within the 65 CNEL or Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway notice source as determined by the Noise Element of the General Plan. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-10 5.507.4.1.1 Noise exposure where noise contours are not readily available. Buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq-1-hr during any hour of operation shall have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 (or OITC 30). 5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located as defined in Section 5.507.4.1 or 5.507.4.1.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq -1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hours of operations 5.507.4.2.1 Site features. Exterior features such as sound walls or earth berms may be utilized as appropriate to the building, addition, or alteration project to mitigate sound migration to the interior. 5.507.4.2.2 Documentation of compliance. An acoustical analysis documenting complying interior sound levels shall be prepared by personnel approved by the architect or engineer of record. 5.507.4.3 Interior sound transmission. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating tenant spaces and tenant spaces and public places shall have an STC of at least 40. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, indicates a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. CEQA standards are discussed more below under Section 3.11.3, Environmental Impacts. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The Noise Element in the City of Seal Beach General Plan “quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for near-term and long-term levels of growth and traffic activity. The Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that Seal Beach residents will be protected from excessing noise intrusion.” Figure N-3 “Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines” in the City of Seal Beach General Plan (shown below) identifies land use compatibility noise standards for noise-sensitive land uses affected by transportation and non-transportation noise sources. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-11 The City of Seal Beach General Plan also lists the following goal, objectives, and actions relating to noise: Goals:A beach town should be a quiet place where one can hear the surf and the wind. Reduce the level of noise, so that it causes less human stress or health damage, is not as likely to interfere with human activities such as sleep, work, play, or thought, and allow the peaceful existence of wildlife and pets. Objectives: The identification in quantitative, numerical terms of existing and projected noise levels, noise sources, and noise-sensitive land uses in the City of Seal Beach. Establishment of appropriate criteria and guidelines for desirable sound levels and the identification of means available to achieve those sound levels in the City of Seal Beach. • m La ,d Use C&l 8!)ory Res ,dent1al -L ow Derrs ,ly Si n g l e Fam i ly . Du plex, Mob ile Hom es Resi d enllal • MUlU Fami ly T ra n sier l Lo d gin g . Mot Is . Ho te l s Sct,ool ,, L ibr er i es . C hur ch es , Hospitals. Nu rs l n Homes Audi tor urn s , Co cer Hall ' A mp hi th ealAr Spor ts Arer1a, 0 tdoor Sp ectato r Spo rts Playg ro un ds , Neig hborhood Parks Gol f Cou rses , Riding Stab les , Waler Recrea ti on, Ceme lenes Office B ui l din gs , Bu siness Com merci al and Profe ss ion..:i l lndu s ln al , Man ufactu rin g, Utili li es, A gri cu l tur e 55 Commvnity Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL. dB 60 65 70 75 Figure N-3 -Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Norm lly Ac-ce p lab le Speci fied lan d use is sati sfar.tc,y, based upon lhe sss umpl10n Iha \ any b.J!ld1 ngs involved ar e of norm a co nvena on al co11 str uct1on. 1N1 th out any spea d noise ins ul at io n req uir em ents Wff/2'.j Cond1Uonsll y A coe plabl e New str ucti cn ordevel opm ent sh)ul d be under tak en onl y after e de tai led ana l ys:is of ~!::I naiss redu ct ion requ 1re1nen 1s 1s made and n eede d no ise insul ation fea tur es in clu de d ,n lhe design . Conve n!onsf co ns~ucUon , bu l wi of ed w in dow -d Ire h a-r supp ly di b orn ng ~11 II roor m y Norma ly Un acceptab le New str ucUm or deve lopmen t sho uld ge,ieral y be di sco lfa<:;ed If new co nstr ucl1on or deve lopm en l does proceed, a deta1l&J a ·lys,s of the no ise re du cb on requi rements mus.t be ma de ard newed ncis e lnsJ!ation fealures ind uded in lh 0 de~1 gn Clearly Unae<:eplabl e New con,tructl on or de velopment e ~l"II 11,i l"IIAl'VloUlh,t rtM' kb lll'tl"tAl"t~lcAft CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-12 Direction for an implementation program that may be used to achieve and maintain a minimal noise environment. Maintain the relatively quiet areas of Seal Beach by regulating existing and potential noise sources, especially in public open space and the designated Wildlife Refuge area. Inform the citizenry of Seal Beach of real and potential noise hazards, both physical and psychological. The City shall encourage a long-term development pattern that minimizes noise conflicts through planning and zoning. The City shall require the construction of barriers to mitigate sound emissions where necessary and feasible to protect outdoor noise sensitive land uses. The City shall require the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new roadway projects in Seal Beach. The City shall minimize potential transportation noise through proper design of street circulation, coordination of routing, and other traffic control measures. The City shall ensure the effective enforcement of city, state, and federal noise level standards by all appropriate city divisions. The city shall provide quick response to complaints and rapid abatement of noise nuisances within the scope of the city’s police powers. Actions: Issue 1 – Transportation Noise Control. The most efficient and effective means of controlling noise from transportation systems is reducing noise at the source. However, since the City has little direct control over source noise levels because of state and federal preemption (e.g., State Motor Vehicle Noise Standards), policies should be focused on reducing the impact of the noise on the community. Cooperative efforts with state and federal offices are essential. Encourage the use of walls and berms in the design of residential or other noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads, commercial, or industrial areas. Provide for continues evaluation of truck movements and routs in the City to provide effective separation from residential or other noise sensitive land uses. Encourage the enforcement of State Motor Vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles through coordination with the California Highway Patrol and Seal Beach Police Department. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-13 Aircraft noise standards shall be enforced by the local Airport Environ Land Use Plan (AELUP), which is regulated by the local Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Issue 2 – Noise and Land Use Planning Integration. Community noise considerations are to be incorporated into land planning. These measures are intended to prevent future noise and land-use incompatibilities. The criteria shown previously in Figure N-3 are used to assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment. These criteria are the basis for review of projects to ensure the compatibility between land-use and noise environment. These guidelines are the primary tool that will allow the City to ensure noise integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoors. Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The noise referral zones (areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL) can be used to identify locations or potential conflict. New developments will be permitted only if appropriate mitigation measures are included such that the standards contained in this Element or the ordinance are met. Enforce the State of California Uniform Building Code that specifies that the indoor noise levels for residential living spaces not exceed 45 dB[A] LDN/CNEL due to the combined effect of all noise sources. The state requires implementations of this standard when the outdoor noise levels exceed 60 dB[A] LDN/CNEL. The Noise Referral Zones (60 CNEL) can be used to determine when this standard needs to be addressed. The Uniform Building Code requires that “Interior community noise levels (CNEL/LDN) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL or LDN of 45 dB[A] in any habitable room.” The code requires that this standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. The City can and is encouraged to reduce the noise standard from 45 CNEL to 40 CNEL. Additionally, the standard should be applied to single-family homes. Issue 3 – Community Noise Control for Non-Transportation Noise Sources. The focus of noise from non-transportation sources is the Community Noise Ordinance. The ordinance can be used to protect people from noise generated on adjacent properties. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect people from non-transportation-related noise sources such as music, machinery and pumps, air conditioners, landscaping and gardening activities, and truck traffic on private property. The Noise Ordinance does not apply to motor vehicle noise on public streets, but it does apply to motor vehicle noise on private property. The Noise Ordinance is designed to protect quiet residential areas from stationary noise sources. The noise levels encouraged by the ordinance are typical of quiet residential areas. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-14 Continue to enforce the community Noise Ordinance. The most effective method to control community noise impacts from non-transportation noise sources is through application of the community noise ordinance. All new residential projects to be constructed near existing non-transportation noise sources (including, but not limited to commercial facilities, public parks with sports activities) must demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a Registered Engineer that the indoor noise levels will be consistent with the limits contained in the noise ordinance. Require construction activity to comply with the limits establishes in the City Noise Ordinance. Designate one agency in the City to act as the noise control coordinator. This will ensure the continued operation of noise enforcement efforts in the city. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.15 “NOISE” in the City’s Municipal Code offers the following limits and requirements relating to noise in the City. 7.15.010 Designated Noise Zones. The noise zones of the City are as follows: A. Noise Zone 1: Residential properties. B. Noise Zone 2: Commercial properties. C. Noise Zone 3: Industrial, manufacturing and oil properties. 7.15.015 Exterior Noise Standards. A. Unless otherwise specifically indicated, the following exterior noise standards shall apply to all property within a designated noise zone: B. No person shall create any noise, or allow the creation of any noise, on property owned or occupied by such person when such noise causes the noise level to exceed the following when measured from a residential property: 1. The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. 2. The exterior noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. • • Noise Standards: Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 55 db(A) 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 50 db(A) 10 :00 p.m . -y:oo a.m. 2 65 db(A) At any time 3 70 d b(A) At any time m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-15 3. The exterior noise standard plus 10 db(A) for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. 4. The exterior noise standard plus 15 db(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. 5. The exterior noise standard plus 20 db(A) for any period of time. C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first 4 noise limit categories in subsection B, the cumulative period applicable to such category shall be increased to reflect that ambient level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. 7.15.020 Interior Noise Standards. A. Unless otherwise specifically indicated, the following interior noise standards shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone: In the event the alleged offensive noise consists of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dB(A). B. No person shall create any noise, or allow the creation of any noise, on property owned or occupied by such person when such noise causes the noise level to exceed the following when measured from another dwelling unit on residential property: 1. The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. 2. The interior noise standard plus 5 db(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. 3. The interior noise standard plus 10 db(A) for any period of time. C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first 2 noise limit categories in subsection B, the cumulative period applicable to such category shall be increased to reflect that ambient level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • Noise Zone m Noise Standards: Noise Level 55 db(A) 50 db(A) Time Period 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. -7:00 a.m. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-16 7.15.025 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: A. Activities conducted on the grounds of a nursery, elementary, intermediate or secondary school or college. B. Activities conducted pursuant to a special event permit issued by the city. C. Activities conducted at a publicly owned park or playground. D. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used in connection with emergency machinery, vehicle or work. E. Noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of real property performed in the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays; and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday. F. Noise associated with real property maintenance performed in the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays; between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday; and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a holiday. G. Activities for which local noise regulations are preempted by federal or state law. 7.15.030 Schools, Hospitals and Churches. A. No person shall create any noise that causes the noise level at a school, hospital or church to exceed the exterior noise standard for the noise zone in which such facility is located. B. No person shall create any noise that causes the noise level at a school, hospital or church to interfere unreasonably with the operation of the facility. C. The prohibitions of this section apply only if signs are conspicuously displayed at 3 separate locations within one-tenth of a mile of the school, hospital or church. Additionally, the prohibitions of this section apply only if the school, hospital or church is in use. 7.15.035 Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning Equipment. A. No building permit shall be issued for the installation of heating, venting and air conditioning ("HVAC") equipment in or adjacent to residential areas if the noise produced by the HVAC equipment exceeds an A-weighted exterior sound pressure level of 50 dB(A). The method of computation used shall be that specified in the "Application of Sound Rating Levels of Outdoor Unitary Equipment," Standard 275, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 1997 ed. or the latest revision thereof. B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a building permit may be issued for the installation of: • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-17 1. HVAC equipment containing a timing device deactivating the HVAC equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. provided the noise produced by the HVAC equipment does not exceed an A-weighted exterior sound pressure level of 55 dB(A). 2. HVAC equipment generating noise that does not exceed an A-weighted exterior sound pressure level of 65 dB(A), provided that the applicant obtains the prior written consent of the owner of each property where the exterior sound pressure level would exceed 55 dB(A). 3.11.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant noise impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis Construction Noise Thresholds The City of Seal Beach does not have specific limits or thresholds for construction noise but rather limits the times of construction as shown in Section 7.15.025 of the City’s Municipal Code. Stationary Noise Thresholds The City’s Municipal Code Sections 7.15.015 and 7.15.020 provides exterior and interior noise standards for new development with new stationary noise sources, respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, these standards are used to determine significant stationary noise impacts. Transportation Noise Thresholds A Project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB(A) under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under very quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dB(A) are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dB(A) is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. Based on this, the following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the FAA, are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations (e.g., residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries). A significant impact would occur if traffic noise increase would exceed: 1.5 dB(A) in ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher, 3 dB(A) in ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 dBA CNEL, and 5 dB(A) in ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL. Vibration Thresholds The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for construction vibration. Therefore, the recommended criteria by Caltrans for human annoyance and vibration damage shown in Tables 3.11-3 and 3.11-4 above are used in this analysis. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-18 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether noise impacts are significant. Would the Project result in: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact NOI-1 The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact Analysis Construction The Project is intended to result in the construction of future residential developments which would generate temporary noise level increases on and adjacent to existing development in the City. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Table 3.11-6 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise-impact assessments based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor. Table 3.11-6: Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels Construction Equipment Source at the Project Site Distance to Nearest Sensitive Receptor Sound Level at Receptor Lmax, dB(A) Acoustical Use Factor (%) Leq, dB(A) Backhoe 50 feet 77.6 40 73.6 Compressor (air) 50 feet 77.7 40 73.7 • • • r-- I I ~ - ~ - I -I I I L J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-19 Construction Equipment Source at the Project Site Distance to Nearest Sensitive Receptor Sound Level at Receptor Lmax, dB(A) Acoustical Use Factor (%)Leq, dB(A) Concrete/Industrial Saw 50 feet 89.6 20 82.6 Crane 50 feet 80.6 16 72.6 Dozer 50 feet 81.7 40 77.7 Dump Truck 50 feet 76.5 40 72.5 Excavator 50 feet 80.7 40 76.7 Forklift (Gradall) 50 feet 83.4 40 79.4 Front End Loader 50 feet 79.1 40 75.1 Generator 50 feet 80.6 50 77.6 Grader 50 feet 85.0 40 81.0 Pavement Scarafier 50 feet 89.5 20 82.5 Paver and Paving Equipment 50 feet 77.2 50 74.2 Pumps 50 feet 80.9 50 77.9 Roller 50 feet 80.0 20 73.0 Scraper 50 feet 83.6 40 79.6 Tractor 50 feet 84.0 40 80.0 Welder / Torch 50 feet 74.0 40 70.0 Source: Federal Highway Administration Road Construction Noise Model v1.1 2018 As shown, construction equipment generates high levels of noise, with average noise levels ranging from 73 to 83 dB(A). Construction of individual future developments associated with implementation of the Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of an individual project. Construction noise levels are highly variable and dependent upon the specific locations, site plans, construction details of individual projects. Significant noise impacts may occur from operation of heavy earth-moving equipment and truck haul operations that would occur during the construction phase of an individual development. The City’s Municipal Code includes noise mitigation measures such as limiting hours of operation for construction. Municipal Code Section 7.15.025.E exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading or real property performed between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekdays; and between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Saturday. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 7.15.015 requires stationary equipment not exceed the maximum allowable noise levels listed in the table (shown above). The General Plan Noise Element also requires construction activity to comply with the limits established in the City Municipal Code. Even with the application of noise attenuation policies from the General Plan and Municipal Code, it is likely that construction noise would affect adjacent sensitive receptors, therefore construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project are considered potentially significant. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 described below has been identified to reduce potential I I l ~ - - r- - -- r-- - - ~ -- -- - - - - -- - I I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-20 impacts. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires Project applicants to describe and commit to a mitigation plan that would be developed when the individual project information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures to be implemented. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 lists potential provisions that could be included in the mitigation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the Project would have a less than significant impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Construction of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in construction noise that would affect adjacent sensitive receptors. As with the Project, construction of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would still be required to comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code and the General Plan Noise Element policies to minimize construction noise and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Operation The Project would expose nearby noise sensitive receptors to noise from operations associated with increased traffic and stationary operational noise, such as lawn maintenance and air conditioning equipment. All new residential development under the Project would be required to comply with the policies in the City’s General Plan Noise Element and noise limits in the Municipal Code, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Operational Traffic Implementation of the Project would facilitate new development and would impact offsite sensitive receptors due to Project-related traffic. Vehicle trips associated with future developments would increase traffic volumes throughout the City along the entire existing roadway network. The total additional vehicle trips would be dispersed throughout the City associated with each proposed housing site. As such, traffic from the Project would represent an incremental increase in traffic on individual roadways and result in a less than significant impact related to noise. The City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan (shown above) unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will need to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3 of the General Plan. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure from transportation noise sources would result in less than significant impact. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-21 As discussed, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Operation of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may increase traffic volumes. However, the total additional vehicle trips associated with the Project, include the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, would be dispersed throughout the City and represent an incremental increase in traffic related noise. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Operational Stationary Noise Implementation of the Project would facilitate the addition of new development throughout the City. New development would result in the installation of HVAC systems. Future developments would need to comply with the noise level limits listed within Sections 7.15.015 and 7.15.020 in the City’s Municipal Code. Following the regulations in the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in impacts related to stationary noise to be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may install HVAC systems that generate operational stationary noise. As with the Project, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would still need to comply with the noise level limits listed within Sections 7.15.015 and 7.15.020 in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan. Project applicants shall describe and commit to a mitigation plan that will be developed when the information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures. The objective of the plan should be to minimize construction using all reasonable (e.g., cost vs. benefit) and feasible (e.g., possible to construct) means available. Components of a mitigation plan may include some or all of the following provisions, which should also be specified in construction contracts. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques available. (e.g., mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-22 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. Stockpiling shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction traffic shall be limited to approved haul routes established by the City. Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receptors. Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. The total noise level produced will not be substantially greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. During the entire active construction period, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant with Mitigation. • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-23 Excessive Groundborne Vibration Impact NOI-2 The Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impact Analysis Construction Vibration Impacts Construction activity at projects within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 3.11-5 lists reference vibration levels for construction equipment. As shown in Table 3.11-4, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it can exceed the Caltrans criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile buildings, 0.30 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and 0.5 in/sec PPV for new residential and commercial buildings). Construction details and equipment for future project- level developments under the Project are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. This would be a potentially significant impact. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 described below has been identified to reduce potential impacts. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requires Project applicants to prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to construction activities prior to issuance of a building permit. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. As with the Project, construction details and equipment associated with the development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not known at this time; however, would be subject to a vibration and noise analysis to assess potential impacts. Specific vibration impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Operational Vibration Impacts Operational vibration is typically associated with commercial and industrial uses which can generate varying levels of groundborne vibration, depending on operational procedures and equipment. Other sources of groundborne vibration include rail traffic and subways. The Project would allow for future developments with conventional road traffic that is not anticipated to generate significant levels of operational vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-24 This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Similar to the Project, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in a use that would generate conventional road traffic that is not anticipated to generate significant levels of operational vibration. Therefore, development of the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. A qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer shall conduct this noise and vibration analysis. The vibration levels shall not exceed the Caltrans damage thresholds listed in the table below. If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile1 buildings 0.30 0.12 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.20 Older2 residential structure 0.70 0.30 New residential structures 1.2 0.50 I I I - e----- -- m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-25 Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50 Notes: Transient sources again create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seal equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 1 A fragile building is considered one where the structural components are weakened due to age, poor construction materials, or significant deterioration, making it susceptible to damage from even minor stress. 2 An older building refers to a structure that has been around for a considerable period of time, regardless of its current structural integrity, with factors like construction materials, maintenance history, and design playing a role in determining its overall condition. Source: Caltrans 2020 Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Airport Land Use Plan Impact NOI-3 For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Impact Analysis Noise levels within portions of Seal Beach are affected by overflights from military and civilian aircraft from the Los Alamitos JFTB and from civilian aircraft from the Long Beach Airport. The Los Alamitos JFTB aircraft flights occur over residential and other noise sensitive land uses within the City. The CNEL contours from the AICUZ study are contained within the Noise Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Residential noise sensitive areas north of I-405 experience aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. The City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. This includes noise generated from aircraft flyovers. The City’s General Plan Noise Element states “all new residential projects to be constructed near existing non-transportation noise sources (including, but not limited to commercial facilities, public parks with sports activities) must demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a Registered Engineer that the indoor noise levels will be consistent with the limits contained in the noise ordinance.” Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3. Following the I I ~ - I I I J_ m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-26 noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure and compliance with the City’s requirements for preparation of an acoustical study would reduce potential impacts and the Project would result in a less than significant impact. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may experience aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 CNEL as it is located north of I-405 and near the Los Alamitos JFTB. Similar to the Project, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to the noise level standards and actions in the City’s Noise Element, which include the preparation of an acoustical study or implementation of project-specific mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.11.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative noise impacts is the immediate project vicinity. This geographic scope is appropriate for noise as effects of noise are highly localized. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.11-7 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to noise and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-27 Table 3.11-7: Cumulative Projects Related to Noise # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 These two cumulative projects listed in the table above are located within close proximity to and adjacent to one of the Housing Opportunity Sites. Cumulative project 1 is located adjacent to and within close proximity to Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5. Cumulative project 2 is located within close proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 1. All other cumulative projects listed in Table 3.0-3 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, are located more than a quarter mile away from a Housing Opportunity Site or Main Street Program area and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to noise when considered with the Project. If the two cumulative projects listed in the table above were to have the same construction schedule and timeline as the adjacent Housing Opportunity Site, then there could be a cumulatively considerable increase in construction noise in the area resulting in potential impacts. However, as future development of Housing Opportunity Sites is currently speculative and there is no timeline for actual buildout for any of Housing Opportunity Sites, it is currently not feasible to predict whether construction noise from buildout of the cumulative projects would combine with construction noise from buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites in a manner that could result in significant impacts. Buildout of future developments facilitated by the Project and cumulative developments would be required to comply with and adhere to the City’s construction noise ordinances and requirements to minimize impacts. The Housing Element Update’s anticipated noise and vibration-related impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would increase housing development in an already developed area, thereby resulting in increased ambient noise levels. Potential noise and vibration-related impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by- -I I I I 1~ - - !... I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise 3.11-28 case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would verify compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and address potential noise and vibration impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development is not anticipated to result in significant noise and vibration impacts, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing excessive noise, following compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable noise or vibration impact, and no mitigation is required. 3.11.5 References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed October 2024. _____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed October 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Noise%20Element.pdf. Accessed November 2024. _____. 2024. Municipal Code. https://ecode360.com/43955072#43955106. Accessed November 2024. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook, 2006. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook02.cfm. Accessed October 2024. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2024. United States Navy. 2024. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. https://cnrsw.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/WPNSTA-Seal-Beach/About/Installation- Guide/Installation-Locations/Seal- Beach/#:~:text=Under%20the%20station's%20primary%20tenant,on%20these%20vessels%20an d%20weapons%2C. Accessed November 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-1 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for population and housing. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to population and housing that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area and the Project would have a less than significant impact. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in population growth in the City. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.12.1 Environmental Setting Population Trends Historic Growth Seal Beach was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community and beachside tourist destination. The population of the City remained relatively stable from 1915 to 1944 with little more than 1,000 residents. However, in 1944 the U.S. Navy acquired roughly half of the land within the City to construct the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, bringing new residents. The population increased to more than 7,000 residents by 1954. In 1962, the Leisure World retirement community was established, adding an estimated 9,000 senior residents. Other housing development during this time took place in the neighborhoods known as College Park East, College Park West, and Marina Hill; and the Surfside community was annexed into the City. However, these development booms were followed by very limited growth in the 1970’s and afterward. The City’s historic population growth between 1990 and 2024 is summarized in Table 3.12-1. Table 3.12-1: Seal Beach Historic Population Growth Year Population Change from Previous (Percent) 1990 25,098 -- 1995 24,454 -2.6 2000 23,705 -3.1 2005 24,257 2.3 2010 23,864 -1.6 2015 25,227 5.7 2020 25,349 0.5 2024 24,350 -3.9 - I ~ - I ,--- - I r-- I r-- I - I ~ I - ~ I - ~ - L __ _ I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-2 Source: DOF 2007, 2012, 2023, 2024 Population provided in this table are estimates and may be different from the census count. Current and Projected Population According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the City had an estimated population of 24,992 residents in 2020 and as of January 1, 2021, the City population was estimated to be approximately 24,443 residents (City of Seal Beach 2024). Additionally, as of January 1, 2024, the DOF population estimates identify the City’s population to be approximately 24,350 residents (DOF 2024). The SCAG’s demographics and growth forecast predicts the City’s population would increase to 25,400 by 2045 (SCAG 2020). Housing Trends Housing Units and Average Household Size The housing stock in the City consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family units with one mobile home park. As of January 1, 2024, it is estimated that the City has 14,678 total dwelling units with a vacancy rate of 8.9 percent (DOF 2024). The City’s housing growth between 1990 and 2024 is summarized in Table 3.12-2. Table 3.12-2: Seal Beach Historic Dwelling Units Growth Year Dwelling Units Change from Previous (Percent) 1990 14,407 -- 1995 14,342 -0.5 2000 14,270 -0.5 2005 14,481 1.5 2010 14,557 0.5 2015 14,590 0.2 2020 14,645 0.4 2024 14,678 0.2 Source: DOF 2007, 2012, 2023, 2024 The City’s Housing Element Update noted that the most commonly occurring household size in the City is of one person (45.1 percent) and the second-most occurring household is of two people (35.4 percent). The Housing Element Update noted that the City has a higher share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall (45.1 percent vs. 23.4 percent) and a lower share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall (0.1 percent vs. 3.1 percent) (City of Seal Beach 2024). The DOF estimated that the total housing in Seal Beach, as of January 1, 2024, to be 14,678 units with an average household size of 1.8 persons per household. Additionally of the 14,678 existing units, approximately 13,366 dwelling units were occupied, resulting in an 8.9 percent housing vacancy rate (DOF 2024). - I I I~ - I - I I -I I I I - I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-3 Regional Housing Need Allocation SCAG prepared the RHNA to allocate regional housing growth among different jurisdictions. The RHNA is the state-mandated process to identify the total number of dwelling units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its Housing Element for an eight-year period. The RHNA indicated that the City is expected accommodate 1,243 new dwelling units within the four income levels between 2021 and 2029. Table 3.12-3 summarizes the RHNA by income category. It indicates that approximately 63 percent of the housing need will be moderate to upper-income households, and 37 percent will be very low to low-income households (City of Seal Beach 2024). Table 3.12-3: Housing Need Allocation Jurisdiction Very Low Income (<50% of Area Median Income) Low Income (50-80% of Area Median Income) Moderate Income (80-120% of Area Median Income) Above Moderate Income (> 120% of Area Median Income) Total Seal Beach 258 201 239 545 1,243 Source: City of Seal Beach 2024 Employment Trends According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the City has 10,005 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. The most prevalent industry is Education and Social Services with 2,671 employees (26.7 percent of total) and the second most prevalent is Professional Services with 1,452 employees (14.5 percent of total). The most prevalent occupation category in the City is Management, in which 5,440 employees (54.4 percent of total) work and the second most prevalent type of work is in Sales, which employes 2,535 people (25.3 percent of total) (City of Seal Beach 2024). According to the Employment Development Department’s (EDD) Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, in August 2024, the City had a total labor force of 9,800 people with 9,300 employed people and 500 people unemployed which results in a 5.1 percent unemployment rate (EDD 2024). The SCAG’s demographics and growth forecast predicts the City’s employment would increase to 13,100 by 2035 and 13,500 by 2050 (SCAG 2023). IC-I I I I I 7 - I _J I I I ~ I L ___ ~ m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-4 3.12.2 Regulatory Setting State California Housing Element Law State law requires each city and county adopt a general plan for future growth. This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, HCD estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth that would occur in each county in the state, based on DOF population projections and historic growth trends. Where there is a regional council of governments, HCD provides the regional housing need to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares provides cities and counties the opportunity to comment on the proposed allocations. HCD oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the state’s projected housing need. Each city and county must update its general plan housing element on a regular basis (every eight years). Among other things, the housing element must incorporate policies and identify potential sites that would accommodate the municipality’s assigned share of the regional housing need. Ultimately, housing elements must be certified by HCD signifying compliance with state law and adopted by the municipality's governing body. The Housing Crisis Act Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended, aims to address California’s housing shortage by expediting the approval process for housing development of all types, particularly in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacements. To address the crisis, this bill prohibits some local discretionary land use controls currently in place and generally requires cities to approve all housing developments that comply with current zoning codes and general plans. SB 330 requires that a housing development project only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, notwithstanding the provisions of the HAA or any other law, subject to certain exceptions. State Density Bonus Law The State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915-65918) encourages the development of affordable and senior housing, including up to a 50 percent increase in project densities for most projects, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided. Under Government Code 65915, cities and counties are required to grant a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to housing projects which contain one of the following: Ten percent of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building development, for rental or sale to lower-income households. Five percent of the total units of a housing development, including a shared housing building development, for rental or sale to very low-income households. • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-5 A senior housing development or a mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons. Ten percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development are sold to persons and families for moderate-income provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. Ten percent of total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons, provided at the same affordability level as very low-income units. Twenty percent of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development in housing dedicated for fulltime students at an accredited college. One hundred percent of all units in a development (exclusive of a manager’s unit or units), are for lower-income households except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development may be for moderate-income households. The City of Seal Beach has adopted the State Density Bonus Law by reference in Section 11.4.55.010, State Affordable Housing Density Bonus, in its Municipal Code. Assembly Bill 1397 California’s AB 1397 (2017) amended sections 65580, 65583, and 65583.2 of the Government Code, relating to housing by revising what could be included in a local government’s inventory of land suitable for residential development. AB 1397 changed the definition of land suitable for residential development to increase the number of multifamily sites. Identified sites must be “available” and “suitable” for residential development and have a “realistic and demonstrated potential” for redevelopment during the planning period. In addition, AB 1397 requires housing element inventory sites to be 0.5 acre to 10 acres, have sufficient infrastructure, or be included in a program to provide such infrastructure, to support and be accessible for housing development. The local government must specify the realistic unit count for each site and whether it can accommodate housing at various income levels. Senate Bill 166 SB 166 (2017) requires a local government to ensure that its housing element inventory can accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the planning period. It prohibits them from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density than what was used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification of the housing element, unless the city or county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. In such cases, any remaining sites identified in the housing element update must be adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. A local government may reduce the residential density for a parcel only if it identifies sufficient sites remaining within the housing element as replacement sites, so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-6 Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. SCAG produces growth forecasts so that other agencies can use the forecasts to make funding and regulatory decisions. General plans, zoning regulations, and growth management programs of local jurisdictions inform the SCAG projections. The projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart growth” policies and incentives that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends toward a better jobs-housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development and redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout the region. SCAG calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions within Orange County, including Seal Beach. Connect SoCal The most recent Connect SoCal was adopted on April 4, 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is the SCAG’s RTP/SCS for the region. Connect SoCal 2024 outlines a vision for a more resilient and equitable future, with investment, policies and strategies for achieving the region’s shared goals through 2050. Connect SoCal 2024 reflects a continuum of progress across each planning cycle, not just in the technical capabilities of modeling tools or advancements in data collection but in building upon local agencies progress completing projects. While the Plan remains focused on its core responsibilities, and on the requirements of comprehensive regional transportation planning integrated with the development of a SCS, it also encompasses a holistic approach to programs and strategies that support success of the RTP/SCS, such as workforce development, broadband and mobility hubs. Connect SoCal also identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas within the SCAG region where future growth can be located to help the region reach Plan goals. Generally, this means that people in these areas have access to multiple modes of transportation or that trip origins and destinations are closer together, allowing for shorter trips. PDAs are a technical tool to facilitate Plan development and analysis, and are used for different purposes, such as growth visioning, performance measurement or grant applications. Connect SoCal projects that 66 percent of new households and 54 percent of new jobs between 2019-2050 will be located in PDAs (SCAG 2024). Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to population and housing are presented below: m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-7 Land Use Element The City’s Land Use Element, adopted in 2003, contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to population and housing that apply to the Project: Population Seal Beach has experienced a decrease in population of 3.7 percent during the past decade. Despite the minor decrease in City population experienced in the 2000 U.S. Census, the City will continue to provide support for its residents, maintain its infrastructure and provide jobs and housing balance while still maintain its small town atmosphere. Housing For more than half a century, Seal Beach has grown and developed. As a result, neighborhood identify is visible in the types of residential structures that have been constructed within various sections of the community. It is to be a goal of the City to preserve its low- and medium-density residential character while still providing a wide choice of living accommodations and lifestyles for its residents. Housing Element Update The City’s Housing Element Update contains the following goals and policies related to population and housing that apply to the Project: Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. Policy 1a: Provide adequate sites for a variety of housing types through the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, while ensuring that environmental and infrastructure constraints are addressed. Policy 1b: Where appropriate, encourage the redesignation of vacant and underutilized non- residential land to residential uses with appropriate densities to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to address the housing needs of all economic segments of the population. Policy 1c: Encourage the infilling of vacant residential land. Policy 1d: Encourage the recycling of underutilized residential land, where such recycling is consistent with established land use plans. Policy 1e: Provide compatibility of residential uses with surrounding uses through the separation of incompatible uses, construction of adequate buffers, and other land use controls. Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-8 Policy 2a: Expand housing opportunities for households with special needs, including the elderly, persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, large households, female-headed households, and the homeless. Policy 2b: Provide incentives to encourage the development of new affordable housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including extremely low-income persons. Policy 2c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to expand housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, including persons with special needs. Policy 2d: Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are: o located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities; o adequately served by public utilities; o adequately served by police and fire protection; o minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or other environmental constraints; and o outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households. Goal 3: Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Policy 3a: Assist City residents in securing decent safe and affordable housing. Policy 3b: Conserve the affordability of housing units assisted with public funds through affordability covenants or resale controls. Policy 3c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources designed to maintain and/or improve the affordability of existing housing units to low- and moderate-income households. Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. Policy 4a: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied and rental housing where feasible. Policy 4b: Promote the replacement of any substandard units that cannot be rehabilitated. Policy 4c: Investigate and pursue programs and funding sources available to assist in the improvement of residential property. Policy 4d: Encourage the continued affordability of housing units rehabilitated with public funds. • • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-9 Policy 4e: Discourage the conversion of existing apartment units to condominiums where such conversion will diminish the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Policy 4f: Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods, preventing the encroachment of incompatible commercial or industrial uses into established neighborhoods. Policy 4g: Assist residents, wherever possible, in securing decent safe and adequate housing. Policy 4h: Promote a safe, healthful, aesthetically pleasing environment that strengthens individual and family life. Policy 4i: Preserve and enhance viable residential neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity. Policy 4k: Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety, and aesthetic conditions. Policy 4l: Periodically reexamine local building and zoning codes for possible amendments to reduce construction costs and processing times without sacrificing basic health and safety considerations. Goal 5: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, or familial status. Policy 5a: Promote fair housing practices throughout the community. Policy 5b: Encourage the development of housing that meets the special needs of disabled and elderly households. Policy 5c: Promote the provision of housing to meet the needs of families and households of all sizes. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 11.4.55.005, General Affordable Housing Provisions, of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the City and state requirements for affordable housing. As outlined in the section, the provisions of the Municipal Code section are governed by the requirements of Government Code Section 65915. The provision outlines requirements for affordable housing compatibility with market rate projects, availability of affordable housing, inclusion of an affordable housing agreement as a condition for discretionary permits for projects granted a density bonus, medium income level requirements, and requirements for granting a density bonus. Section 11.4.55.010, State Affordable Housing Density Bonus, implements Government Code Section 65915 which allows the city to grant a density bonus over the otherwise allowable maximum residential density permitted by the city and the general plan, and one or more of the affordable housing incentives set forth in Section 11.4.55.020, Affordable Housing Concessions and Incentives, if the applicant agrees • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-10 or proposes to construct lower income units, very low income units, senior citizen housing development, moderate income units in condominiums and planned unit developments, and housing accompanied by land donation. 3.12.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant population and housing impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following evaluation of potential population, housing, and employment impacts associated with the Project was based on data obtained from the U.S. Census, DOF, and applicable planning documents from the City. The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the Project related to employment, population, and housing in the City. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s population and housing impacts are significant. Would the Project: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-11 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Unplanned Population Growth Impact POP-1 The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Impact Analysis The Project involves implementation of the City’s Housing Element and Zoning Code Update which is being prepared for planning of additional dwelling units in the City to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. As the Housing Element Update itself is a plan, it would not induce “unplanned growth” per this threshold. While no development is directly proposed by the Project, construction associated with the development of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area would require contractors and laborers as projects are developed in the future. However, the City expects that the supply of general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool. The implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in a long-term increase in employment from short-term construction activities. As the Project would primarily result in residential development as opposed to job-generating development, the impacts of employment increases in the City are not further evaluated in this analysis. Implementation of the Project would provide for the development of additional dwelling units in the City resulting in an increase in the City’s population. The Housing Opportunity Sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA could be developed with up to 1,491 dwelling units at their maximum capacity. These sites include underutilized sites that are suitably zoned for residential development and would not require such changes, and sites that would require a zoning change to allow for residential development or increased residential development capacity. In addition, the Housing Element Update includes the Main Street Program which could facilitate development of additional dwelling units within the City’s Main Street Specific Plan area. This EIR analyzes build out from the Main Street Program at 70 percent of maximum potential build out for the area which results in the potential for 115 units. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a resulting build out potential of a total of 1,606 new dwelling units. Additionally, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the proposed buildout of 167 dwelling units included within the City’s site inventory as a pipeline site. Therefore, with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project incorporated, the resulting maximum buildout potential would increase to 1,773 dwelling units. These sites are shown in Table 2.4-6 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Using the City’s DOF average of 1.8 persons per household, the development 1,773 dwelling units would contribute an estimated population increase of 3,191 residents, which is an approximately 13.1 percent increase to the City’s 2024 population of approximately 24,350 residents. As shown in Table 3.12-4, maximum buildout of these sites would increase the City’s total dwelling units from 14,678 to 16,451. This growth would exceed the City’s population projection for 2045 of 25,400 m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-12 residents by 2,141 residents. However, this scenario is highly conservative as it is unlikely that 100 percent of sites would be developed at the capacity analyzed in this EIR. Table 3.12-4: Maximum Unit Buildout Dwelling Units Population Maximum Unit Buildout 1,773 3,191 Maximum Unit Buildout + City Existing 16,451 27,541 Percent Increase 12.1 13.1 As discussed in Appendix B, Sites Inventory and Methodology of the Housing Element Update, a “realistic development capacity” was used to determine the most probable yield of units at sites in the inventory. The City assumed development of the five Housing Opportunity Sites being rezoned MC/RHD at 80 percent of maximum allowable density with the remaining three Housing Opportunity Sites at 70 percent of the maximum allowable density. Additionally, the site inventory includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline site that would provide 167 additional units. As shown in Table 3.12-5, the “realistic” buildout of the Housing Element Update is 1,332 dwelling units. Similar to the maximum unit buildout, if all sites identified as a Housing Opportunity Site and pipeline site were to be developed, the resulting population would also exceed SCAG’s projection for the number of residents in the City by 2045. Table 3.12-5: Realistic Unit Buildout Growth Dwelling Units Population Realistic Unit Buildout 1,332 2,397 Realistic Unit Building + City Existing 16,010 26,747 Percent Increase 9.1 9.8 The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to plan for and promote housing growth within the City to meet the housing needs of the region and state. While the scenarios exceed the population projections identified by SCAG, it is important to note that the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element Update does not mean that they will be developed at the estimated unit counts or level of affordability. Several laws passed in recent years, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), aim to address the need for more housing and expedite approvals for housing projects in order to respond the state’s housing crisis. Implementation of the Project and future developments consistent with the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the City. As such, the Housing Element Update is the City’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, as stated previously, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The 167 dwelling units r I I I I J t-- I - I I I - I - -I I - m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-13 resulting from the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would increase the City’s total dwelling units and result in population increases. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.12.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The topic of population and housing has cumulative implications on the entire Southern California region, not just on the City of Seal Beach. Therefore, this cumulative impact analysis is based on regional planning documents including Connect SoCal 2024, Southern California’s most recent RTP/SCS. The Housing Element Update would accommodate projected citywide and regionwide population and housing growth that has been identified by SCAG’s Connect SoCal. By its nature, the impact analysis under Impact POP-1 considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth throughout the City and consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The Housing Element Update incorporates regional growth anticipated by SCAG’s RHNA projections and thus considers cumulative growth. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.12-6 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to population and housing and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.12-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Population and Housing # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing Preparation of EIR 167 ,-- I I I I ,-- -----' m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-14 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - - ~ - - ~ -- I L ___ _ I I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-15 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - ~ - - - L I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-16 # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 As identified in Table 3.12-6, the list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas include those in the City of Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County. Included in this list are candidate sites identified in the Housing Element Update for Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County for potential future development. Development of these sites would be within the planned growth identified by SCAG for the region and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As identified in SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, the Southern California region has a total RHNA of 1,341,827 dwelling units (SCAG 2021). Similar to the City, all jurisdictions within the SCAG region are required to prepare a Housing Element Update that identifies sites within its jurisdictional boundaries for future residential development to accommodate its respective RHNA. Implementation of each respective Housing Element Update and future developments consistent with the Housing Element Update would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the region. As such, the Housing Element Update for each jurisdiction would be the jurisdiction’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth. The combination of the cumulative developments outlined in the table above proposes the development of a total of 3,685 dwelling units. However, out of the total units proposed by the cumulative developments, only 1,674 dwelling units are actually currently proposed undergoing environmental review or already approved developments. The remaining 2,011 dwelling units are proposed only as a conceptual development for buildout as part of a Housing Element Update or as a potential future project. Development of the currently proposed undergoing environmental review and already approved developments would lead to direct population growth. However, the impacts of the growth have already been analyzed or is currently being analyzed in its project-specific environmental analysis. As previously stated, the Housing Element Update would provide for a planned increase in the City’s housing capacity to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The Housing Element Update does not propose any housing development at this time. Instead, the Housing Element Update identifies a series of I 1 I I I 7 ~ - - -__J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-17 implementation actions to facilitate future housing development, as necessary to meet the City’s housing obligations per state law. Unless exempt, future developments facilitated by the Project, as well as cumulative projects, would be subject to discretionary permits from the City or other local decision-making agency, and would be required to undergo applicable CEQA review and be analyzed for its compliance with City or other municipal requirements before their approval. This would ensure that any potential environmental effects stemming from their development would be minimized to the extent feasible. As previously mentioned, the build out scenario presented in this EIR is highly conservative and it is unlikely that 100 percent of sites would be developed at their analyzed development capacity. As such, it is likely that the growth forecasts presented in this analysis are overstated and that actual population growth from implementation of the Project and related future developments will end up being less. As the Project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing and the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, cumulative impacts associated with Project implementation would therefore be less than significant. 3.12.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cle an-compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. Department of Finance (DOF). 2007. E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 1990-2000. August 2007. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e- 8-historical-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-1990-2000/. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2012. E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2000- 2010. November 2012. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e8- 2000-2010/. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2023. E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2010- 2020. November 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e8- 2010-2020/. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed September 2024. Employment Development Department (EDD). 2024. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places, Orange County, August 2024. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census- areas.html. Accessed September 2024. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Adopted on September 3, 2020. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Population and Housing 3.12-18 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and- growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21 and modified on 7/1/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Accessed February 2025. _____. 2023. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Draft November 2, 2023. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-connect-socal-2024- demographics-growth-forecast-draft-110223.pdf?1698263165. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2024. Connect SoCal, Adopted April 4, 2024. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23- 2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf. Accessed February 2025. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-1 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for public services. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to public services that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would result in increased demand for public services including fire and police protection services and parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to fire and police protection services would be less than significant; however, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable related to parks. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s generate new residents in the City which would increase the need for additional public services including fire and police protection services, and parks. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.13.1 Environmental Setting Fire Protection Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) contracts with the City to provide fire, emergency medical, and rescue services. The OCFA works with the City’s Community Development Department and developers to conduct project review through an application and plan check process. OCFA Station 44 and Station 48 are located within the City at 718 Central Avenue and 3131 North Gate Road, respectively, though additional resources may respond from OCFA stations located in nearby jurisdictions as needed. In addition, OCFA and the Naval Weapons Station have a reciprocal agreement where the installation’s fire department can respond to calls for service if required. Police Protection Police services for the City are provided by the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD), primarily comprised of patrol, traffic enforcement, detective bureau operations, parking management, animal control services, and other public safety related services. The SBPD is also responsible for updating the Emergency Services Plan, evacuation plans, emergency aid, comprehensive communications components, and a coordination program with other local government agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies (City of Seal Beach 2003). Existing police facilities include the Police Station at 911 Seal Beach Boulevard, a substation at Marine Safety Headquarters at the pier, and a report writing office at the City Hall Annex building. Marine Safety In addition to fire and police services provided to residents, the City has a Marine Safety Department that provide safety services in the coastal and aquatic environment for the public through prevention m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-2 education, rescue, medical aid, outreach, beach management, and enforcement. The Seal Beach Marine Safety headquarters is located at 888 Ocean Beach Avenue. The Marine Safety Department is staffed 365 days per year and the hours of staffing change seasonally. Beach lifeguards are the primary staff within the Marine Safety department and provide marine safety protection including patrolling the beach in a mobile unit, warning locals of hazardous conditions, rescuing people in distress or in danger of drowning, applying first aid, answering questions and giving information pertaining to the beach and ocean environment, removal of hazardous obstacles from sand and water, and advising the public in regard to local beach and ocean related ordinances, regulations, safety, and conduct. Parks Open space or outdoor recreation is defined by the City as land that is set aside for neighborhood, community or regional parks, beaches, special use parks or facilities, greenbelts, and open space corridors (City of Seal Beach 2003). According to the City’s 2003 General Plan, the City has a total of 18 parks that provide 75.45 acres of parkland. Additionally, in 2021, the City acquired River’s End Park which was constructed by a private developer and provides an additional 6.2 acres of parkland. Therefore, the City has a total parkland acreage of 81.65 acres. The Quimby Act allows the City to require the dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees for new development. The acreage to be dedicated is based on five acres per 1,000 residents as specified by the City’s Municipal Code. The City has not met the acreage standards set forth in the General Plan However, the City benefits from non-Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 80.3 acres of beaches, the 192.-acre Sunset Aquatic Marina and Park operated by the County, and the National Wildlife Refuge located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. All of these areas provide unique regional recreational opportunities (Seal Beach 2003). School district shared property also provides non-Quimby Act park facilities for use by City residents. Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Services The City is the water service provider for the City using local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and supplementing the water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City also manages the water distribution system within the City. The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) for treatment and disposal. Additionally, storm drainage systems within the City are owned and maintained by the City; however, County and federal storm drainage channels are also located within the City. Therefore, in addition to the services outlined above, City provided public services include water supply and distribution systems, wastewater collection systems, and storm drainage systems. This section does not include an analysis of City provided water, wastewater, and storm drainage services but this text has been included to provide an outline of all relevant City provided public services. An analysis of water, wastewater, and storm drainage services provided by the City can be found in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-3 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting State California Building Code The California Building Code which is in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, establishes the minimum state building standards. The CBC is currently updated every three years. The City of Seal Beach adopted the 2022 CBC and went into effect January 1, 2023. The CBC is based on the 2021 International Building Code but has been amended to account for California conditions. The CBC is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by City building officials for compliance with the CBC. Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code include fire regulations for building standards (also in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2022 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2023, with the next update planned at the end of 2025 for implementation January 1, 2026. California Fire Code The 2022 California Fire Code incorporates, by adoption, the 2021 International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This is the official Fire Code for the state and all political subdivisions. It is in Part 9 of CCR Title 24. Like the CBC, the CFC is revised and published approximately every three years by the California Building Standards Commission. The City of Seal Beach adopted the 2022 California Fire Code, which became effective January 1, 2023. The CFC contains regulations for safeguarding life and property from fire hazards, including setting certain building requirements regarding hazardous materials, storage, and occupancy. Quimby Act Section 66477 of the California Government Code, also known as the Quimby Act, was enacted in 1965 in an effort to promote the availability of park and open space areas in California. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees for park and/or recreational facilities in lieu thereof, or both, by developers of residential subdivisions as conditions to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. The Quimby Act authorizes a city or county to require that the subdivider provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park exceeds that limit, in which case the city or county may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of funds from fees. The City’s General Plan has established a goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Park Land Dedications and Fees, requires as a condition of tentative map approval, for the subdivider to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. The amount of new land m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-4 to be dedicated is required to be five acres per 1,000 residents, or a fee in-lieu established within the City’s adopted fee schedule. California Coastal Commission In partnership with coastal cities and counties, the CCC plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the California Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the CCC directly or through a Local Coastal Program, if applicable. The California Coastal Act includes specific policies (Division 20 of the PRC) that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The policies of the California Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the CCC and by local governments. The City is currently preparing a LCP which is a planning document used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission for the purpose of upholding the California Coastal Act. Regional Airport Land Use Commission The ALUC is governed by Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and has a basic responsibility to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. The ALUC reviews land use proposals near civilian and military airports and other land use issues which have a potential impact on airport operations. The ALUC strives to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft incidents, and to ensure that no structure or land use activities adversely affect the operational integrity of the airports or their navigable airspace. The ALUC has two specific duties according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: 1. Prepare and adopt an airport land use plan for each of its airports within its jurisdiction. 2. Review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators. The City is located within the jurisdiction of the Orange County ALUC and land use policy changes such as the proposed zoning code update and Housing Element update would require review by the Orange County ALUC under applicable AELUP. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-5 development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to public services are presented below: Land Use Element The City’s Land Use Element contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to public services that apply to the Project: Parks, Recreation, and Community Beautification An important goal of the City should be to acquire and develop recreational facilities at strategic locations throughout the community. Because open land is rapidly being developed, acquisition of park sites should be accomplished at the earliest date. Development and maintenance of these sites should follow in a relatively short period of time. The City should cooperate with other governmental agencies to promote a comprehensive plan of park acquisition and development. Public Facilities The City should anticipate and maintain public service demands. Future development of schools, libraries, and municipal facilities should be located in such a manner as to provide the maximum level of service to all members of the community and to promote objectives of the City. General Plan Safety Element The City’s Safety Element contains the following policies related to public services that apply to the Project: Policy 1J: Encourage emergency vehicular access that is of a sufficient width to allow people and emergency equipment into the hazard area and still allow for evacuation, if needed. Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazard in and around the City, and a performance standard of an average total response time of seven minutes or less. Policy 4B: Educate and inform the public on fire safety, especially regarding landscaping installation and maintenance in urban areas, to further protect the community and the environment from unnecessary fire hazards. Policy 4C: Enhance the ability of all structures within the City to resist wildland and structural fires through ongoing, appropriate and cost-effective changes to the City’s Zoning, Building and Fire Codes and standards. Policy 4D: Work with the Water Department and Orange County Fire Authority to analyze the supply and delivery aspect of the water system for fire fighting use to help identify and correct deficiencies. • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-6 Policy 4E: Develop an early warning system with Santa Ana wind fire danger to alert the public of possible precautions or safety measures that may be taken during those critical times. Policy 4F: As a condition of new development, require private responsibility for development and maintenance of necessary new fire flow water lines and hydrants in accordance with the recommendations of the Orange County Fire Authority. Policy 4G: Encourage property owners to create defensible space surrounding their homes, including providing access for fire-fighters, maintaining plantings and outdoor areas, and minimizing combustible structures. Policy 4H: Encourage property owners to consider “fire-wise” planting and the use of fire- resistant building materials, especially in landscaped and developed areas adjacent to Gum Grove Park. Housing Element Update The City’s Housing Element Update contains the following goals and policies related to public services that apply to the Project: Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. Policy 1f: Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems. Policy 1g: Provide for adequate, freely accessible open space within reasonable distances of all community residents. Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. Policy 2d: Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are: o located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities; o adequately served by public utilities; o adequately served by police and fire protection; o minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or o other environmental constraints; and • outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households. Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-7 Policy 4j: Upgrade and improve community facilities and municipal services in keeping with community needs. 3.13.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant public services impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following analysis is based on a review of the General Plan and the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s public services impacts are significant. Would the Project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? o Fire protection o Police protection o Parks The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: o Schools o Other public facilities • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-8 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Government Facilities Impact PUB-1 The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection Police protection Parks Impact Analysis Fire Protection While no specific developments are proposed by the Project, implementation of the Project would increase the potential for housing development in the City. Future development of housing facilitated by the Project would increase the number of residents in the City under build out conditions analyzed in this EIR, and would increase demand for fire protection services and thus, the potential need for additional facilities. The increase in population as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be expected to generate more service calls. New fire personnel, vehicles, and equipment may be required to provide adequate response times to serve future developments. Therefore, the OCFA’s costs to maintain equipment and facilities, and to train and equip personnel could also increase. However, the increase in required personnel and materials costs would be gradual over time and would grow with the incremental increase in population resulting from individual development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites, ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and within the Main Street Program area. All identified Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area are located within highly urbanized areas of the City already served by existing fire services and therefore, as the Project would be located within the existing service boundaries for fire protection, the Project is anticipated to be serviced by existing fire stations without additional new facilities needing to be built. To reduce the demand of fire protection services, future developments proposed under the Project would need to comply with the City’s and OCFA’s fire safety requirements, which include compliance with the California Fire Code and the California Building Code. These requirements regulate new structures related to safety provisions, emergency planning, fire-resistant construction, fire protection systems, and appropriate emergency access throughout a site. Future developments would be subject to a site plan review and approval by the City and OCFA which would include review of compliance with fire safety requirements prior to obtaining a building permit. Additionally, future developments would require a final • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-9 inspection to be conducted by the City and OCFA to ensure adequate fire safety measures are implemented prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. The need for additional or expansion of existing fire protection facilities as a result of future discretionary developments would need to go under CEQA review at a project-specific level. In the event new fire protection facilities are required, they would be disclosed and mitigated, as feasible, at a project-specific level. Compliance with requirements for individual project-specific CEQA review, City fire safety requirements, California Fire Code and the California Building Code requirements would reduce the impacts related to fire protection services to less than significant. The potential impacts on fire protection services generated by the Project be less than significant. Police Protection As stated above, while no specific developments are proposed by the Project, implementation of the Project would increase the potential for housing development and number of residents in the City which would increase demand for police protection services and thus, the potential need for additional police facilities. All identified Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area are located within highly urbanized areas of the City already served by existing police services and therefore, would be located within the existing service boundaries for police protection. However, future developments under the Project would incrementally increase the number of residents in the City and would require expansion or additional police facilities to accommodate future growth. Implementation of the Project would increase demand for law enforcement services incrementally as housing units are built out. The SBPD would evaluate its budget annually to provide adequate police services to accommodate additional growth; however, the additional personnel and materials costs would likely be gradual as the increase in population would occur incrementally over time. Unless exempt, future discretionary development of identified Housing Opportunity Sites and the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, as well as new developments within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review to analyze its potential impacts to police protection services and facilities. If impacts to police services are identified during individual environmental review, mitigation of impacts would be required, as feasible, at a project- specific level. Depending on the population growth in the area and/or staff additions, the City may require modifications to existing facilities or the addition of new facilities. The construction of new facilities or modifications to existing facilities would be subject to subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. Unless exempt, compliance with requirements for subsequent project level CEQA review for future developments proposed under the Project would reduce impacts to police services as it would be required to analyze the potential impacts to existing services and implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts if needed. The potential impacts on law enforcement services generated by the Project be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-10 Marine Safety In addition to police service facilities, future developments under the Project may incrementally increase the use of City beaches and result in increased demand for marine safety services. Implementation of the Project would increase demand for marine safety services incrementally as the Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and new developments within the Main Street Program area are built out. The City would evaluate its budget annually to provide adequate marine safety services to accommodate additional growth; however, the additional personnel and materials costs would likely be gradual as the increase in population would occur incrementally over time. Depending on the population growth in the area and/or staff additions, the City may require modifications to existing facilities or the addition of new facilities. The construction of new facilities or modifications to existing facilities would be subject to subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. This analysis related to marine safety is provided for informational purposes as marine safety services is not an identified impact question under CEQA. Parks As identified in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, under the build out conditions analyzed in this EIR, the Project would result in an estimated population increase of 2,891 residents. The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010 includes the Seal Beach Park Dedication Ordinance which requires five acres of parkland to be located within the City per 1,000 residents. As identified by the City, the City has a total parkland acreage of 81.65 acres which is comprised of 19 parks. Therefore, with an existing 2024 population of 24,350 residents, the City currently needs a total of 121.75 acres of parkland to meet its park standard requirement and the City currently has a parks ratio of 3.35 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements for parkland and is at a deficit for parkland. With a potential increase of 2,891 residents, the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland to be developed further increasing the deficit of the City. Thus, the future developments facilitated by the Project would result in the need for new additional park facilities. However, the City benefits from non-Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 80.3 acres of beaches, the 192-acre Sunset Aquatic Marina and Park operated by the County, the National Wildlife Refuge located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and school district shared property. All of these areas provide unique regional recreational opportunities (Seal Beach 2003). The CCC regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone including shoreline public access and recreation. Implementation of the Project would not result in a reduction in available Quimby Act park and recreational facilities or non-Quimby Act recreational amenities such as beaches and shoreline access. However, the Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal. As discussed above, the City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the City adopting its parks standard. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in impacts to parks. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-11 Future development of identified Housing Opportunity Sites as well as new developments within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review to analyze its potential impacts to park facilities. If impacts to parks are identified during individual environmental review, mitigation of impacts would be required, as feasible, at a project-specific level. In addition, future residential developments would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which requires new developments to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities as a condition of tentative map approval. As the Project does not propose any actual development at this time, the Project is not subject to Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, requirements at this time. Future developments proposed under the Project’s compliance with requirements for individual project specific environmental review and compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, would reduce potential impacts related to park facilities. Mitigation Measure PUB-1 has been identified to ensure that project-specific impacts resulting from individual development projects facilitated by the Project would be reduced and mitigated to the extent feasible. However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements and there are limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial impacts to parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s development of approximately 167 dwelling units would be anticipated to result in generation of approximately 301 residents. The new residents generated by the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would increase the need for additional public services including fire and police protection services, and parks. With the five acres per 1,000 resident standards set by the City’s General Plan, the development of the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require an additional 1.51 acres of parkland to offset the increase in population resulting from the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM PUB-1: Parks and Recreation. Subsequent environmental review at a project specific level shall be required for individual development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The environmental analysis shall include an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of individual development projects m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-12 under the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update shall be mitigated to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s required contribution to the City related to parkland dedication and payment of required fees as required by Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, shall be determined at the time of subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. 3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative public services impacts is the City and immediate vicinity. This geographic scope is appropriate for public services as public services such as police and fire are typically provided by City departments with the respective service area being limited to the City with some service areas extending beyond the city limits but within the immediate vicinity. Additionally, though impacts to parks and applicable parks standards are evaluated at the city level, residents of cumulative developments outside of the City but located within the immediate vicinity could utilize City parks and therefore, are included in the list of cumulative developments analyzed in this section. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.13-1 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to public services and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.13-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Public Services # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, Preparation of EIR 167 r--- I 7 I I ,--- L I I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-13 #Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 I 1 I I I 7 ~ i---- - I r-- - ~ ~ - L I I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-14 #Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Candidate site identified in the City of Proposed in Housing Element Update 122 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - ,-- - - - I ----' ~ - m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-15 #Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development (By City of Westminster) Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for public services provided by the City, including fire and police protection services, and parks. The Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also located within the respective service areas for fire and police protection services, would increase demands for public services that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be dependent on existing service capacity of fire and police protection services at the time of individual project approval and the incremental increase in the need for fire and police protection services resulting from other developments. Potential impacts would require evaluation at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to public services and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning fire and police protection services. However, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development identified in Table 3.13-1 identified above would increase demands for parks, as indicated in the discussion above. The increased demand for park facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and thus, would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities, the construction of which could result in significant impact. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. However, even if the 14.46 acres of additional parkland was developed, the City would still continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to recreation facilities and identify mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project and cumulative development would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation resources, and Mitigation Measure I 1 I I I 7 ~ - I_ I I I J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services 3.13-16 PUB-1 is required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to public services. 3.13.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed September 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-1 3.14 RECREATION This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for recreation. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to recreation that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The Project would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The development of the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would increase use of existing parks and recreational facilities and would require additional parkland to offset the increase in population resulting from the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.14.1 Environmental Setting Open space or outdoor recreation is defined by the City as land that is set aside for neighborhood, community or regional parks, beaches, special use parks or facilities, greenbelts, and open space corridors (City of Seal Beach 2003). Per the 2003 General Plan, the City has a total of 18 parks that provide 75.45 acres of parkland. Additionally in 2021, the City acquired River’s End Park which was constructed by a private developer and provides an additional 6.2 acres of parkland. Therefore, the City has a total parkland acreage of 81.65 acres. The Quimby Act allows the City to require the dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees for new development. The acreage to be dedicated is based on five acres per 1,000 residents as specified by the City’s Municipal Code. The City has not met the acreage standards set forth in the City’s General Plan as a significant portion of the City was developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed. However, the City benefits from non-Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 80.3 acres of beaches, the 192-acre Sunset Aquatic Marina and Park operated by the County, and the National Wildlife Refuge located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. All of these areas provide unique regional recreational opportunities (City of Seal Beach 2003). School district shared property also provides non- Quimby Act park facilities for use by City residents. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-2 3.14.2 Regulatory Setting Federal There are no federal regulations related to recreation applicable to the Project. State Quimby Act Section 66477 of the California Government Code, also known as the Quimby Act, was enacted in 1965 in an effort to promote the availability of park and open space areas in California. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances requiring the dedication of land, or the payment of fees for park and/or recreational facilities in lieu thereof, or both, by developers of residential subdivisions as conditions to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, a city or county may require the provision of three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park exceeds that limit, in which case the city or county may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of funds from fees. The City’s General Plan has established a goal of five acres per 1,000 residents. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Park Land Dedications and Fees, requires as a condition of tentative map approval, for the subdivider to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. The amount of thew land to be dedicated is required to be five acres per 1,000 residents, or a fee in-lieu thereof as established in the City’s adopted fee schedule. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to recreation are presented below: Land Use Element The City’s Land Use Element contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to recreation that apply to the Project: Parks, Recreation, and Community Beautification An important goal of the City should be to acquire and develop recreational facilities at strategic locations throughout the community. Because open land is rapidly being developed, acquisition of park sites should be accomplished at the earliest date. Development and maintenance of these m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-3 sites should follow in a relatively short period of time. The City should cooperate with other governmental agencies to promote a comprehensive plan of park acquisition and development. Housing Element Update The City’s Housing Element Update contains the following goals and policies related to recreation that apply to the Project: Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. Policy 1f: Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems. Policy 1g: Provide for adequate, freely accessible open space within reasonable distances of all community residents. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010 includes the Seal Beach Park Dedication Ordinance which has established a goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Ordinance requires that as a condition of tentative map approval, the subdivider shall dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. The amount of land to be dedicated shall be five acres per 1,000 residents, or a fee in lieu thereof based on the fair market value of five acres of land per 1,000 residents, as determined by appraisal. 3.14.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant recreation impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following analysis is based on a review of the General Plan and the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s recreation impacts are significant. 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? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-4 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Existing Parks Impact REC-1 The Project would 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. Impact Analysis The Project does not propose any development. Unless exempt, future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the Housing Element Update would identify a series of implementation actions to increase housing capacity that would induce population growth in the City. Future developments facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth of approximately 2,891 residents (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing), would incrementally increase the City’s demand for park and recreation land. The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, requires provision of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The forecasted population growth could also incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. As identified by the City, the City has a total parkland acreage of 81.65 acres which is comprised of 19 parks. Therefore, with an existing 2024 population of 24,350 residents, the City currently has a parks ratio of 3.35 acres per 1,000 residents. The Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the statewide standards or reach the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal (City of Seal Beach 2013). The City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in the overuse of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. However, the City benefits from non-Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 80.3 acres of beaches, the 192- acre Sunset Aquatic Marina and Park operated by the County, the National Wildlife Refuge located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and school district shared property. All of these areas provide unique regional recreational opportunities (City of Seal Beach 2003). Future developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would result in further impacts to parks and recreational facilities beyond the existing conditions. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, as a condition of tentative map approval, any future developments and the subdivider would be required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. The amount of land to be dedicated would be required at a standard of five acres per 1,000 residents, or a fee m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-5 in lieu thereof based on the fair market value of five acres of land per 1,000 residents, as determined by appraisal at the time the fee was set. The City is in the process of updating its park in-lieu fees. Any fees contributed would be required to be used for either acquiring land or developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreational opportunities would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, and the dedication of land and payment of fees would reduce potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities. However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the park acreage standards set by the General Plan and there is limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s development of approximately 167 residential units would be anticipated to result in generation of approximately 301 residents. With the five acres per 1,000 resident standards set by the City’s General Plan, the development of the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require an additional 1.51 acres of parkland to offset the increase in population resulting from the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure PUB-1 identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, would be required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Recreational Facilities Impact REC-2 The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impact Analysis The Project does not propose any development, or new or modified recreational facilities. As noted above under Impact REC-1, the City has an existing total park acreage of 81.65 acres with a park ratio of 3.35 acres per 1,000 people and does not meet the parks standard for the state or the City. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-6 As concluded in REC-1 above, the Project’s maximum buildout scenario would create a demand for park and recreation land of approximately 14.46 acres. As the City’s existing parks acreage does not meet the applicable standard of five acres per 1,000 people, and due to the limited land available for development within the City, sufficient excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the increased demand that may be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, the increase in residents resulting from future developments under the Project would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which could result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Future construction or expansion of recreational facilities required as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to complete applicable environmental review at a project specific level to determine the potential impacts that would result from construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As outlined in Mitigation Measure PUB-1, identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, all future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which as a condition of tentative map approval, requires any future developments and subdivider to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreation would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents and would reduce potential impacts. Future developments facilitated by the Project would require construction or expansion of recreational facilities in the future which may have an adverse effect on the environment and therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s development of approximately 167 residential units would require an additional 1.51 acres of parkland to offset the increase in population resulting from the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure PUB-1 identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, would be required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. 3.14.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-7 effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative recreation impacts is the City and immediate vicinity. This geographic scope is appropriate for recreation as parks standards for each city are set by the respective cities and impacts to parks are evaluated at the city level. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.14-1 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to recreation and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.14-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Recreation # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4- level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 ~ I 7 ~ - - -- L I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-8 #Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square-feet of ground-level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retai l space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed- use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retai l space in a building with 592,100 square feet of area Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 I 1 I I I 7 ~ - ,-- - ~ r-- -__J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-9 #Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units future residential development 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521- 19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Sites 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 Though impacts to parks and applicable parks standards are evaluated at the city level, residents of cumulative developments outside of the City but located within the immediate vicinity could utilize City parks and therefore, are included in the list of cumulative developments analyzed in this section. Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for recreation facilities. Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative developments identified in Table 3.14-1, would increase demands for recreational facilities, as indicated in the discussion above. The list of I 1 I I I 7 ~ I - ~ r-- L_ I I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Recreation 3.14-10 cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas include those in the City of Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County. Included in this list includes candidate sites identified in the Housing Element Update for Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County for potential future developments. The increased demand for park and recreation facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. However, even if the 14.46 acres of additional parkland was developed, the City would continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative developments would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when the future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Cumulative developments proposed within the City and surrounding areas identified in the list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects would be anticipated to further increase the existing deficit in parkland and would result in increased impacts. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to recreation facilities and identify mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project and cumulative development would result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the Project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation resources, and Mitigation Measure PUB-1 is required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to recreation. 3.14.5 References City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed February 2024. _____. 2013. Parks and Community Services Master Plan, July 22, 2013. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/APPROVED%20MASTER%20PLAN%20- %20Website.pdf. Accessed February 2024. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-1 3.15 TRANSPORTATION This section describes the existing transportation setting and potential effects from implementation of the Project. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on data prepared by Stantec (Appendix F), the City‘s General Plan Circulation Element (City of Seal Beach 2003), the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (City of Seal Beach 2020a), and the City’s SB 743 Implementation Policy adopted on June 8, 2020 (City of Seal Beach 2020b). The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines and General Plan policies outline the analysis methodology, performance criteria, and thresholds of significance for transportation impacts applied in this analysis. The transportation analysis for the Project were prepared in accordance with these guidelines and policies. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The impacts are considered less than significant. The Project would potentially result in inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15034.3, subdivision(b). Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was considered within the traffic analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.15.1 Environmental Setting Roadway System Regional Access The City is served by State Route (SR) SR 1 (also referred to as Pacific Coast Highway or PCH), SR 22 (Garden Grove Freeway), and I-405 (San Diego Freeway). PCH extends in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction along the Pacific coastline with a portion passing through the southern part of the City. PCH through the City is four lanes. SR 22 generally runs in an east-west direction from Long Beach to SR-55 in the City of Orange, by way of the Cities of Westminster and Garden Grove. SR 22 merges with I-405 for an approximately two-mile stretch before terminating in the City of Long Beach. I-405 extends in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction and passes through the City generally in an east- west direction as it merges with SR 22. Through the City, I-405 has six mixed-flow lanes and two high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in each direction. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-2 Local Access The local circulation system within the City is composed of a hierarchy of streets and roads with varying functions. Arterials link residential and commercial districts to the freeway network and provide intercity connections. Collector streets are two lanes, Secondary arterials are four lanes (undivided), Primary arterials are also four lanes (divided), and Major arterials are six lanes. Arterial roads that provide intracity access include Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, Marina Drive, Lampson Avenue, Main Street, Bolsa Avenue, Electric Avenue, and Ocean Avenue. Collector streets are low to moderate capacity streets that move traffic from local streets to arterial roads and are two lanes wide. Collector streets serve the beach and the various residential areas within the City. Collector streets that provide local access to the various Project sites include Balboa Drive, El Dorado Drive, 1st Street, and Central Avenue. Seal Beach Boulevard runs north/south through the entire length of the City, starting at Bradbury Road, the north city limits, and terminating at Ocean Avenue south of PCH. The arterial is six lanes (divided), except for a two-lane segment south of Pacific Coast Highway. This arterial connects the freeway to other arterials throughout the City. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Seal Beach Boulevard as a Primary arterial from Electric Avenue to PCH and a Major arterial from PCH to the City’s northern limits. Westminster Avenue is four-lanes (divided) and runs through the City in an east/west direction, parallel to the I-405. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Westminster Avenue as a Primary arterial for the entire length through the City. Marina Drive is located in the southwest portion of the City and extends from the west City limits to PCH. It is generally two lanes (undivided), with on-street parking, bike lanes, and runs in an east/west direction. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Marina Drive as a Secondary arterial. Bolsa Avenue is located in the southwest portion of the City and extends from PCH to Seal Beach Boulevard. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with bike lanes and runs in an east/west direction. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Bolsa Avenue as a Secondary arterial. Main Street is located in the southwest portion of the City and extends from Ocean Avenue to PCH. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with a combination of parallel and diagonal on-street parking and runs in a northeasterly/southwesterly direction. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Main Street as a Secondary arterial. Electric Avenue is located in the southwest portion of the City and extends from 6th Street to its terminus just past Ocean Avenue. It is a two-lane divided roadway with on-street parking. The Mary Wilson Branch of the Orange County Library and the Red Car Museum are located in the median park. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Electric Avenue as a Secondary arterial. Ocean Avenue is located in the southwest corner of the City and runs in an northwesterly/southeasterly direction adjacent to the Pacific Ocean waterline. It extends from 1st Street at the west end to Electric Avenue at its east end. Past Electric Avenue, Ocean Avenue connects to Seal Beach Boulevard. The facility is two-lanes undivided with on-street parking and bike lanes between Dolphin Avenue and Electric m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-3 Avenue. The arterial primarily provides access to the beach, local shops, and residential areas. The City’s Circulation Element classifies Ocean Avenue as a Secondary arterial. Balboa Drive is located in the southwest portion of the City and extends from PCH to Catalina Avenue. It is a two-lane undivided local street and primarily provides access to residential areas. El Dorado Drive is a private road located in the northwest portion of the City within the Leisure World community and extends from Monterey Road to Northwood Road. It is a two-lane undivided local street and generally runs in a north/south direction. 1st Street is located in the southwest corner of the City and extends from Ocean Avenue to PCH and runs in a northeasterly/southwesterly direction. 1st Street is two-lanes (undivided) with on-street parking south of Marina Drive and is four lanes undivided with on-street parking north of Marina Drive. The City’s Circulation Element classifies 1st Street as a Secondary arterial south of Marina Drive and a Primary arterial north of Marina Drive. Central Avenue is located in the southwest portion of the City, extends from Marina Drive to 12th Street and is a two-lane undivided local street with on-street parking. Central Avenue generally runs in an east/west direction. Pedestrian Facilities The pedestrian network within the City of Seal Beach consists largely of sidewalk infrastructure supported by marked crossing treatments at certain locations and intersection controls (i.e., pedestrian countdown signals). The City requires new road infrastructure to construct sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian movements. As documented in OCTA’s Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan (OCTA 2019), regionally significant roadways within the City of Seal Beach generally have sidewalk infrastructure except for missing sidewalk gaps totaling approximately seven miles (combined total). Gaps exist on Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, PCH, Seal Beach Boulevard, and Lampson Avenue. The City of Seal Beach currently has an overall Walk Score of 41 out of 100, indicating that most trips require a car (Walk Score 2024). However, the Main Beach/Old Town Neighborhood is “very walkable” with a score of 85, which indicates that most common trips could be accomplished on foot (City of Seal Beach 2022). Bicycle Facilities Seal Beach classifies bicycle facilities consistent with OCTA’s bikeway classifications: Class I Bike Path – Provides for bicycle travel in a paved right-of-way completely separated from the roadway. Class II Bike Lane – Provides a striped bicycle lane for one-way travel within the roadway. • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-4 Class III Bike Route – Provides a signed-only bikeway in a shared lane with vehicles within the roadway. Class IV Bike Boulevard – Provides a separated/dedicated bikeway within the roadway. There is an existing Class I Bike Path along Seal Beach Boulevard from Electric Avenue to PCH. There is also an off-road bicycle trail along the San Gabriel River. An off-road trail running parallel to SR-22 connects to the San Gabriel River Bicycle Trail to the west, and Class II bike lanes on North Gate Road to the east. Lastly, there is a multi-use path on Seal Beach Boulevard from Lampson Avenue to the frontage of the Old Ranch Town Center. There are existing Class II Bike Lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard, PCH, Bolsa Avenue, Electric Avenue, Marina Drive, Westminster Avenue, Gates Road, College Park Drive, and Lampson Avenue. Transit Facilities Various bus transit operators directly service the City of Seal Beach. OCTA is the transit operator of OC Bus and provides transit services throughout Orange County, including Seal Beach. There are three OC Bus transit routes serving the City: Route 1 (Long Beach to San Clemente via PCH), Route 42 (Seal Beach to Orange via Seal Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard/Lincoln Avenue), Route 46 (Orange to Seal Beach via Ball Road) and Route 60 (Long Beach to Tustin via Westminster Avenue/17th Street). Long Beach Transit provides public transportation for the southeastern Los Angeles County area and northwestern portion of Orange County. Long Beach Transit Route 171 operates within the City and provides transportation between the Cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. The City also has a Senior Transportation Program provided by California Yellow Cab. The Senior Transportation Program is a Dial-a-Ride service that is free for City residents aged 60 years and older and that operates Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 2:30 PM, by reservation. In addition, there is a separate program called Senior Non-Emergency Transportation program that is similar to the Dial-A-Ride program but is dedicated to non-emergency health related trips. 3.15.2 Regulatory Setting Federal There are no federal regulations related to transportation applicable to the Project. State California Department of Transportation Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining all state-owned roadways. The state facilities providing regional access to and from the project site are SR 1 (PCH), SR 22, and I-405. • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-5 Senate Bill 743 SB 743 was signed into law on September 27, 2013. The legislature found that with the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and, thereby, contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). SB 743 started a process that changed the approach to transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts. As stated by the legislation, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (PRC Section 21099(b)(1)). In January 2016, OPR released revisions to its proposed Draft CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package, including the Guidelines section implementing SB 743 (Section 15064.3) and OPR simultaneously released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018), which contains OPR’s technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. The provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 applied prospectively as described in Section 15007, and on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section applied statewide. Regional Southern California Association of Governments SCAG is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for six counties in Southern California, including Orange County. It also functions as the federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. Connect SoCal 2024 is Southern California’s RTP/SCS. SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal 2024 on April 4, 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a long-range blueprint to guide transportation investments and land-use decisions through 2050 while meeting the requirements of California’s landmark 2008 SB 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a SCS to accommodate future population growth and reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks. The Project’s relationship to GHG emission reductions is discussed in detail in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-6 Local Orange County Transportation Authority Within the SCAG region are six County Transportation Commissions that hold the responsibility of programing and implementing transportation projects, services, and programs in their respective counties, including Orange County. OCTA is the Transportation Commission responsible for funding and implementing transit and capital projects in Orange County. OC Go, formerly known as Measure M, is a 30-year one-half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Orange County. OCTA manages the funds and implements the improvements to freeways, arterials, and transit projects and programs. Currently, approximately 43 percent of the funds go towards freeways, 32 percent to arterials and 25 percent to transit (OCTA 2023). The goals of OC Go are to relieve congestion, improve street conditions, expand Metrolink, reduce costs for seniors and people with disabilities, synchronize signals, and reduce transportation related air and water pollution. City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan Circulation Element (City of Seal Beach 2003) includes goals and policies addressing the City’s circulation system and development within the City. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the General Plan are relevant to this transportation impact analysis: Circulation Element Goal: Provide and maintain a comprehensive circulation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City and near open space habitat for wildlife, which minimizes environmental impacts (including air, light, and noise pollution). Objective: Ensure that the circulation system is in balance with the City’s Land Use Element. o Policies: Monitor and participate in applicable county, regional, state, and federal transportation plans and proposals. Maintain compliance with the County’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). Review implementation programs that coordinate the transportation needs and requirements of the City with those of other public agencies in order to ensure that the overall circulation plan of the City is effective, efficient, and safe. Develop and implement an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation system projects. Objective: Provide adequate capacity for the City’s circulation needs while minimizing negative impacts, including environmental impacts needing mitigation. • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-7 o Policies: Maintain circulation system standards for roadways and intersection classifications, right- of-way width, pavement width, design speed, capacity, maximum grades, and associated features such as medians and bicycle lanes. Develop a circulation system that enhances environmental amenities and scenic areas. Goal: Provide a circulation system that supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired LOS on all streets and at all intersections. Objective: Comply with adopted performance standards for acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). o Policies: Maintain a citywide LOS not exceeding LOS D for roadway segments and intersections during the peak hours. The [General Plan] study area intersections that are projected to operate at worse than LOS D (with improvements) are all located along PCH. The relatively high levels of traffic along this corridor are a direct result of increased development outside of the City of Seal Beach and the congestion along the I-405 Freeway. The City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) depict PCH as a Primary Highway (4- lanes divided). As a Primary highway (4-lanes divided), there is insufficient capacity along PCH to accommodate the existing as well as future traffic volumes. Coordinate transportation improvements along PCH with Caltrans in a manner that minimizes disruptions to the community. Objective: Ensure that the location, intensity, and timing of development are consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure and standards defined in the Growth Management Element. o Policies: Assess all development projects in order to identify their traffic impacts and require that they pay their fair share of the system improvements necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the project. Limit the number of driveways on arterial streets to reduce vehicular conflict and facilitate traffic flow. Require new development to install traffic signals at intersections on arterials that, based on individual study, are shown to satisfy traffic signal warrants. Promote the use of traffic signal coordination within the City and with adjacent jurisdictions. ■ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-8 Goal: Develop and encourage a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) system to assist in mitigating traffic impacts and in maintaining a desired LOS on the circulation system, while minimizing air pollution and other environmental impacts. Objective: Pursue transportation management strategies that can maximize vehicle occupancy, minimize average trip length, and reduce the number of vehicle trips. o Policies: Encourage non-residential developments to provide employee incentives for utilizing alternatives to the conventional automobile (e.g., carpools, vanpools, buses, bicycles, and walking). Encourage the implementation of employer TDM requirements included in the South California Air Quality Management Plan. Encourage industry to use flextime, staggered working hours, and other means to lessen commuter traffic. Encourage the use of multiple-occupancy vehicle programs for shopping and other uses to reduce traffic. Support national, state, and regional legislation directed at encouraging the use of carpools and vanpools. Promote ridesharing through publicity and provision of information to the public. Require the proposals for major new non-residential developments include submission of a TDM plan to the City. Encourage the development, implementation, and use of new advanced technologies to optimize safe traffic flow and manage traffic congestions. Goal: Maintain participation in a public transit system that provides mobility to City residents and employees as a logical alternative to automobile travel. Objective: Encourage improved local and express bus service through OCTA to the City. o Policies: Coordinate with OCTA and other appropriate entities to improve bus service to and within the City, Encourage the provision of safe, attractive, and clearly identifiable transit stops throughout the community. Implement and expand, wherever feasible, programs aimed at enhancing the mobility of senior citizens and disabled persons. • • • • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-9 Objective: Require new development that is designed in a manner that facilities provision or expansion of transit service, provides onsite commercial/recreational facilities to discourage midday travel, and provides onsite public transportation circulation. o Policies: Encourage developers to work with agencies providing transit service with the objective of maximizing the potential for transit use. Encourage employers to reduce vehicular trips by offering employee incentives. Require proposed developments to include transit facilities, such as park-and-ride sites, bus benches, shelters, pads or turnouts, where appropriate, in their improvement plans or as needed in proximity to their development. Goal: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school and recreational use. Objective: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to citywide standards and practices. o Policies: Develop citywide standards for construction and maintenance of bikeways and pedestrian walkways. Develop and adopt a planned bikeway system that is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of County-wide Bikeways, and other adopted Master Plans, to assure that local bicycle routes will be compatible with routes or neighboring jurisdictions. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities. Where appropriate, require proposed developments adjacent to proposed bikeway routes to include bicycle paths or lanes in their street improvement plans and to construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition of approval. Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation. Require plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to give priority to providing continuity and closing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network. Develop programs that encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or rights-of- way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads, and streets wherever possible for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians. • • • • • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-10 Develop a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan that facilitates pedestrian traffic in major activity areas. Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Require the installation of sidewalks with all new roadway construction and significant reconstruction of existing roadways. Develop a plan and pursue funding for bicycle support facilities and cycling education/information programs. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 4.10, Transportation Impact Development Fee, establishes a transportation facilities and program development fee that imposes on development projects an equitable share of the cost of mitigating future transportation facility and program needs created by such projects. Developers pay a transportation impact fee which is generally calculated using a project’s peak hour trip generation and the cost to implement transportation facilities improvement. The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 11.4.45, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), complies with Section 65089.3(a)(2) of the California Government Code, which requires the City to adopt a trip reduction and TDM ordinance. TDM is the implementation of programs, plans, or policies designed to encourage changes in individual travel behavior. TDM includes, but is not limited to, programs that encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOV), such as through the use of carpools, vanpools, and transit; reduction or elimination of vehicle trips; and efforts to encourage rescheduling of peak period trip to non-peak periods. Safety Action Plan The City’s Safety Action Plan (SAP) was developed to identify solutions and create a holistic strategy to prevent and reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the local roadways across the City. The plan examines local, state, and federal data, along with peer research, to identify safety solutions for all users, including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and more. It addresses both user behavior and infrastructure improvements through a collaborative approach with stakeholders. Prepared in compliance with Safe Roads and Streets for All requirements, the plan incorporates a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and follows the Safe System Approach. The SAP prioritizes and analyzes safety improvements for intersections, roadway segments, and the High Injury Network, proposing countermeasures to reduce collisions in high-risk areas. Local Roadway Safety Plan The City’s LRSP identifies a framework to evaluate and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadways that is updated every five years. The most recent LRSP was approved by the City in 2022. The goals of the LRSP include: identify areas with a high risk for collisions; illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process; plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- , and long-term implementation; and define safety projects for Highway Safety Improvement Program) ■ ■ ■ ■ m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-11 and other program funding consideration. The LRSP analysis found that influences leading to collisions within the City include aging drivers, impaired driving, improper use of occupant protection, distracted driving, aggressive driving, land departure collisions, and bicyclists. 3.15.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant transportation impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis In accordance with state guidelines, VMT analysis that incorporates the requirements of SB 743 is utilized as one measure of the Project’s potential transportation impacts. SB 743 required OPR to establish guidelines under CEQA for identifying and mitigating VMT transportation impacts. Generally, SB 743 moves away from using delay-based LOS as the metric for identifying a significant impact and instead uses VMT. The City of Seal Beach adopted an SB 743 Implementation Policy (City of Seal Beach 2020a) and a new Transportation Analysis Guidelines (City of Seal Beach 2020b). The methodology and threshold of significance identified in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines are used in this VMT analysis. The tool used to calculate VMT is the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (OCTA 2024), a subarea model of the SCAG travel demand model. Per the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, the existing/baseline year of the model is used to determine the CEQA baseline conditions, and the future year (approximately a 20-year forecast) provides the cumulative analysis conditions. Screening Criteria Per the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, projects may utilize screening criteria prior to conducting a full VMT analysis to determine if a project would have a less than significant impact on VMT. The screening criteria are based on factors that include project size, locally serving retail, affordable housing provision, and community serving projects as shown in Table 3.15-1. Table 3.15-1: Project Screening Criteria and Threshold Category Criteria/Screening Threshold Project Screened? (Yes/No) Small projects Screening Small projects can be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis. If the project generates less than 250 vehicle trips per day, it is assumed to have a less than significant impact. No1 Retail Projects Screening Retail projects that are locally serving can be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis. A project that proposes locally serving retail uses that are 50,000 square feet or less. No I~ I I I ~ -- L_ I I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-12 Category Criteria/Screening Threshold Project Screened? (Yes/No) Affordable Housing Projects Screening Affordable housing in high quality transit areas can be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis. If the project is 100 percent affordable housing and is in an infill location, the project is assumed to have a less than significant impact. No Community- Serving Projects Screening Projects such as schools, parks, community centers, public buildings, day care, and libraries can be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis. If a project is a community serving use and is intended for local use, then the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on transportation based on the discretion of the city. No 1 One Housing Opportunity Site would meet the small project screening criteria. Because this is a program-level analysis, the Housing Opportunity Sites would collectively generate more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The Project does not include any retail uses or community serving development. While some of the opportunity sites include affordable housing/low-income units, the Project is not comprised of 100 percent affordable units. Since the Project does not meet any of the established screening criteria, a VMT analysis has been conducted as discussed below. VMT Impact Criteria City criteria states that a project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would generate VMT that is at or above the City’s baseline average, with the baseline defined as the existing citywide average residential VMT per capita in the city. The residential VMT per capita is defined as the home- based trip production VMT per residential population. VMT estimates were obtained from the OCTAM 5 travel demand forecasting model at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level and at the citywide level (OCTA 2024). Per the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, since VMT is primarily a function of the location of a project, and the TAZ is the smallest geography in the model, a given project is assumed to have the same average VMT characteristics as neighboring development within the TAZ. However, in certain cases an opportunity site would not be consistent with the primary land uses that comprise the TAZ, such as when an opportunity site is within a TAZ that primarily consists of age-restricted housing. In those cases, the opportunity site is assumed to have the same average VMT characteristics as the nearest adjacent TAZs with unrestricted housing types. Refer to Appendix F for a tabular listing of the OCTAM TAZ VMT data used for this analysis. If all opportunity sites do not exceed the citywide baseline average home-based VMT per capita, the Project would have a less than significant impact. However, if some or all opportunity sites exceed the citywide baseline average, the impact would be considered significant and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the Project’s significant VMT impact would be identified. Table 3.15-2 shows that the baseline citywide average home-based VMT per capita and threshold of significance is 20.49 home-based VMT per capita. I I I I ~ ,-- I I _J m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-13 Table 3.15-2: VMT Threshold of Significance Land Use Type Units Citywide Average (Threshold of Significance) Residential Development Home-based VMT per capita 20.49 Source: OCTAM 5 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether transportation impacts are significant: Would the Project: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision(b)? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Conflict with Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Impact TRANS-1 The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impact Analysis The Project does not include site specific designs showing driveway locations and, therefore, there are no specific details to review and assess direct impacts on the circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. As part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design 1~ - t--- L._ I I J • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-14 standards. Any request to modify or develop new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. For example, maintaining existing pedestrian facilities, providing pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities, and giving priority to providing continuity and closing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network. Furthermore, new development under the Project would need to comply with Transportation Impact Fees which fund the planning, design, development, and construction of transportation facilities reasonably necessary to serve new development. This fee is collected at the time of building permit. As individual development proposals under the Housing Element Update would be evaluated individually for consistency with Orange County and City of Seal Beach plans including the Congestion Management Program, OCTA’s Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan, the impact of implementing the Project would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities associated with the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with appropriate City design standards and consistency with applicable County and OCTA plans. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact TRANS-2 The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). Impact Analysis City criteria states that residential home-based VMT per capita constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than the baseline citywide average residential home-based VMT per capita. VMT estimates were obtained from OCTAM 5 for each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program (refer to Appendix F for a map illustrating the OCTAM 5 TAZ boundaries). Table 3.15-3 shows each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program and the corresponding home-based VMT per capita compared to the citywide baseline average of 20.49 home-based VMT per capita. The VMT analysis shows that each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program could exceed the citywide average m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-15 home-based VMT per capita by up to approximately 30 percent. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact before mitigation. Table 3.15-3: VMT Analysis Site No.Site Name Total Units Home-based VMT per Capita Threshold of Significance Above or Below Threshold of Significance Difference in Home- based VMT per Capita Percent Reduction to Mitigate Impact 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 5 25.12 20.49 Above 22.60% 18.43% 2 Leisure World 177 11.56 20.49 Below -43.58% -- 3 Accurate Storage 83 20.79 20.49 Above 1.46% 1.44% 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 552 24.98 20.49 Above 21.91% 17.97% 5 Old Ranch Town Center 382 25.74 20.49 Above 25.62% 20.40% 6 Seal Beach Plaza 69 22.23 20.49 Above 8.49% 7.83% 7 Seal Beach Center 124 20.50 20.49 Above 0.05% 0.05% 8 99 Marina Drive 99 26.57 20.49 Above 29.67% 22.88% Main Street Main Street Program 115 26.57 20.49 Above 29.67% 22.88% Total 1,606 22.67 20.49 Above 10.64% 9.62% Mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant impact are outlined below. As required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, at the time of application for development, each site would be responsible for providing a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines and would be responsible for identifying appropriate TDM measures to reduce VMT. TDM measures could include, but are not limited to the following measures for future projects that do not screen out of the VMT analysis (i.e., a small project or a project located in an area below the citywide average VMT per capita). Not all potential measures would be applicable at every site and the specific measures needed would be determined on a site-by-site basis: Increase residential density. Construct a mixed-use project. Integrate affordable and below market rate housing into the Project. Provide community-based travel planning, such a marketing programs aimed at residents of the project. Provide pedestrian and bicyclists facilities. Improve pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit accessibility. r I I I I I 7 ,---- ~ t-- r- ~ - - I - !... I I I I I I J • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-16 Limit residential parking supply and/or unbundle residential parking costs. Provide carshare and/or bikeshare programs to residents. Provide transit subsidies to residents. Implementation of TDM measures can reduce a future project’s VMT. The expected reduction in VMT can be quantified using resources such as the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and Advancing Health and Equity (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2021), or other empirical evidence to be approved by the City. The CAPCOA Handbook provides detailed requirements, calculation steps, and limitations for assessing the VMT reduction effectiveness of each measure, including reductions from combinations of measures. While some sites may meet the City’s screening criteria (i.e., small project), as identified above in Table 3.15-3, only one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program (Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World) is expected to be below the citywide average. Because this is a program-level analysis, the impacts of individual projects developed under the Project are not the basis of this evaluation. Though implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would be anticipated to reduce impacts, the effectiveness of the measures in reducing an individual project’s potential VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined at the level of detail provided by a program document. Therefore, based on the information available at this time, which does not include sufficient detail to determine specific mitigation measures and their effect on a site-by-site basis, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of mitigation measures. Specific mitigation measures would be determined for each site, if applicable, at the time of application for development. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be similar in size and nature to some of the Housing Opportunity Sites or Main Street Program and are anticipated to result in similar VMT. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. Individual projects that do not screen out from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines. As described in the Guidelines, Projects which result in a significant impact shall provide VMT mitigation, which could consist of, but not be limited to, the following: • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-17 Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the Project. Provision of offsite infrastructure improvements including roadway improvements for active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or offsite multimodal improvements. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable. 3.15.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative transportation impacts is the SCAG region. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.15-4 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to transportation and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion. Table 3.15-4: Cumulative Projects Related to Transportation # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Residential Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4-level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and Preparation of EIR 167 • • • ~ L --' m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-18 specialty restaurant 2 Naval Weapons Station Pacific Coast Hwy & Seal Beach Boulevard Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 150 3 Water Storage Site Within the Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way Potential future housing developments proposed within the Naval Weapons Station Anticipated 65 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 5 Onni Marina Shores 6500-6670 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242011013) Two, 5-story buildings with a total of 563,529 square feet containing 600 residential units and 4,000 square- feet of ground- level restaurant space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 600 6 Carmel Partners 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7237020050) Construction of a six-story mixed- use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial/retail space Approved (By City of Long Beach) 380 7 Holland Partners 6700 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, City of Long Beach (7242012006) Construction of a new mixed-use project consisting of 281 residential dwelling units, 3,100 square feet of commercial/retail space in a building Approved (By City of Long Beach) 281 1~ I I I I I 7 ~ - ,----- ~ - ~ - - t-- I L---~-I I I I j m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation 3.15-19 with 592,100 square feet of area 8 Long Beach Housing Element Site 6695 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020040); 6411 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (7237020051); No address (7237020904) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 940 9 Long Beach Housing Element Site 1000 N Studebaker Rd (7238015021) Candidate site identified in the City of Long Beach’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Long Beach) 115 10 Orange County Housing Element Sites 11061 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-47); 11031 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-46); 3352 Katella Ave (086-521-19); 11131 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-23); 11088 Wallingsford Rd (086-521-11); 11171 Los Alamitos Blvd (086-521-24) Candidate site identified in the County of Orange’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By Orange County) 619 11 Westminster Housing Element Site 13251 Springdale Street (203-073- 04); Dorothy Lane /Melanie Lane (203-073-05); Dorothy Lane/Lee Drive (203-073-01 and 203-073-03) Candidate site identified in the City of Westminster’s Housing Element as a site for potential future residential development Proposed in Housing Element Update (By City of Westminster) 122 Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.15-4 could increase transportation impacts within the SCAG region. Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads, like the Lampson Project, would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. Future developments on the 1~ I I I I I 7 ~ - ~ ~ - - L I I I I I J m 3.15-20 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each individual project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential cumulative transportation impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. OPR’s Technical Advisory states that “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa” (OPR 2018 page 6). Since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation related to transportation, the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable transportation impact. 3.15.5 References California Governor’s Office of Planning And Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021.Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2020a. Resolution 7042. City of Seal Beach. 2020b. Transportation Analysis Guidelines. City of Seal Beach. 2022. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element – Adopted February 7, 2022. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/6th%20Seal%20Beach%20Housing%20Elem ent_Adopted-compressed.pdf?ver=2022-02-10-091549-117. Accessed August 2023. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2019. Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2023. Local Tax Dollars at Work. https://www.octa.net/programs-projects/programs/oc-go-measure-m/about-oc-go/oc-go-2011- 2041. Accessed February 2024. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2024.Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Version 5. Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. Connect SoCal A Plan for Navigating to a Brighter Future. Walk Score. 2024. City of Seal Beach, CA. Website: https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Seal_Beach#:~:text=Seal%20Beach%20has%20an%20average %20Walk,Score%20of%2041%20with%2024%2C168%20residents. Accessed February 2024. m 3.16-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section discusses the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objected with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is determined to be a tribal cultural resource by a lead agency. The potential tribal cultural resources impacts associated with the Project are identified and discussed herein. Information in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025, and included as Appendix D, and consultation efforts by the City with appropriate California Native American tribes. Where general information is applicable to both Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, and this section, the reader will be referred to Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, for additional detail. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and result in impacts to tribal cultural resources; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, impacts would be less than significant. The City, including the ORCC Specific Plan Project site, is located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources. Additional study of the ORCC Specific Plan Project site is recommended to fully assess future project impacts on tribal cultural resources. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. 3.16.1 Environmental Setting Ethnography Seal Beach is in the ancestral homeland of the Gabrielino (also known as Tongva). At the time of European contact, the Gabrielino inhabited the Los Angeles basin and the southern Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino are descended from a Takic-speaking, Uto-Aztecan group that likely entered the Los Angeles Basin as recently as 1500 years before present (BP) from the southern Great Basin or interior California deserts. However, it is also possible that they migrated in successive waves over a longer period beginning around 4,000 years BP. It has been proposed that Uto-Aztecan speakers displaced the local occupants of the southern coast (Kroeber 1925:578–580; Moratto 1984:165), represented by the Hokan-speaking Diegueño to the south and the Chumash to the north. Much of the review of the Gabrielino presented here is based on William McCawley’s book, The First Angelinos (1996). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-2 The Gabrielino lived in an area that covered more than 1,500 square miles and included the watersheds of the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Ana River, and Rio Hondo, as well as the southern Channel Islands. There were at least 50 residential communities or villages, each with 50 to 150 individuals. Each community consisted of one or more lineages associated with a permanent territory. Each territory was represented by a permanent central settlement, with associated hunting, fishing, gathering, and ritual areas. A typical settlement would have had a variety of structures used for daily living, recreation, and rituals. In the larger communities, the layout was more intricate. A ritualistic or sacred enclosure was surrounded by the residences of the chief and community leaders, which were in turn surrounded by the smaller homes of the rest of the community. Sweathouses, cemeteries, and clearings for dancing and playing were also common at larger settlements (McCawley 1996:32–33). Gabrielino subsistence consisted of terrestrial and marine resources. These included mule deer, pronghorn, rabbits, small rodents, freshwater and marine fish and shellfish, sea mammals, snakes, lizards, insects, quail and mountain sheep. Botanical resources included native grass seeds, pine nuts, acorns, berries, and fresh greens and shoots. Food resources were managed by the chief, who oversaw food reserves, and families were known to store surplus resources to supplement their diet during times of resource stress. The Gabrielino were among the most materially wealthy groups in California, due to a complex trade network between the Tongva and neighboring groups (McCawley 1996:141). Like many other Native American groups, the settlement of Europeans in California brought conflict and disease as the Spanish colonized the west coast, decimating the Native American population. Today, the Gabrielino continue their traditions in Southern California, with approximately 2,000 individuals. Native American Consultation On January 18, 2024, Stantec Consulting Services contacted NAHC in West Sacramento to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the Project area (Appendix D). The NAHC is the state’s official repository of sacred lands, sites, and resources recognized by California Native American tribes. Andrew Green, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded via email on February 14, 2024, to Stantec Consulting Services’ search request that a review of the SLF was “positive” and recommended that the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes be contacted for further information. The NAHC provided Stantec Consulting Services with a list of local tribes that may have additional information regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project and vicinity. The Project is subject to tribal consultation requirements under CEQA (i.e., AB 52 and SB 18). On November 15, 2023, the City sent letters to six Native American tribal representatives. The letters advised the tribal representatives of the Project, offered consultation to discuss the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and solicited information regarding Native American resources in the immediate area. Under PRC Section 21080.3.1, AB 52 consultation process is not required to be initiated unless a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated to the geographic area where a project is located requests, in writing, for consultation. The tribe must respond, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-3 notification and request consultation. One response was received on November 29, 2023, from the tribal representative for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The response indicated that the tribal representative concurs with the proposed General Plan Amendments and the Project; however, the tribal representative requested consultation for all future development projects within the City. 3.16.2 Regulatory Setting Refer to Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, for additional federal and state regulations and local policies applicable to tribal cultural resources. State Assembly Bill 52 (PRC Section 21084.2) AB 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. PRC Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are: Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following: • Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1. • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “non-unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register. The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the NAHC as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency. The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-4 identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Broad provisions for the protection of Native American cultural resources are contained in the HSC, Division 7, Part 2, Chapter 5 (Sections 8010 through 8030). Several provisions of the PRC also govern archaeological finds of human remains and associated objects. Procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98 through 5097.996 for actions to be taken whenever Native American remains are discovered. Section 7050.5 of the HSC states that any person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the PRC. Any person removing human remains without authority of law or written permission of the person or persons having the right to control the remains under PRC Section 7100 has committed a public offense that is punishable by imprisonment. PRC Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5/5097.9 (Stats. 1965, c. 1136, p. 2792), entitled Archaeological and Historical Sites, defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of remains on public land as a misdemeanor. Senate Bill 18 SB 18 (2004) requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places. This allows Native American tribes the opportunity to provide input with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts on, specified Native American places, features, and objects located within that jurisdiction. This consultation is required prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan or designating land as open space. As noted above, the City contacted NAHC and local tribes in accordance with SB 18 requirements. City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to tribal cultural resources are presented below: Cultural Resources Element Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. • Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project’s potential impacts to existing cultural resources. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-5 •Policy 3: Coordinate cultural resource programs and development project review with affected resource agencies and Native American representatives. •Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive for cultural resources. 3.16.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant tribal cultural resources impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid that impact. Methodology for Analysis The following impact analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025, which is included as Appendix D, and the results from the tribal consultation. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a records search at the regional Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, literature review, and search of the SLF from NAHC. Threshold of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s tribal cultural resources impacts are significant. Would the Project: •Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined by PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: o Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-6 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1 The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Impact Analysis In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American tribal contacts on November 15, 2023, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The intent of the tribal consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. The City sent letters to six Native American tribal representatives and one response letter was received from the following tribe: • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The tribe sent a letter to the City on November 29, 2023, stating that they concur with the proposed General Plan Amendments and requests that the Tribal government be consulted on future development projects within the City. As all of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are currently developed or have been developed in the past with uses that have previously disturbed the site, these sites are not anticipated to have undiscovered sensitive tribal resources. However, as the NAHC SLF search resulted in a positive result for tribal cultural resources and the City is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources, future development projects under the Project could require ground-disturbing activities in portions of the City that may have sensitive tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than needed for the existing development could potentially cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources by potentially unearthing previously unknown/unrecorded tribal cultural resources. As detailed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, and identified in the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, three archaeological cultural resources have been identified at, or in the vicinity of, one of the Housing Opportunity Sites: P-30-000143, P-30-000264, and P-30-001546. The status of IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-7 these three archaeological cultural resources is unknown at this time, including their integrity (i.e., whether these sites contain intact subsurface archaeological deposits) and their eligibility for listing in either the CRHR or NRHP. At least two of these sites have reported Native American human remains, and regardless of these sites’ status as historical resources or archaeological resources under CEQA, the presence of such remains may be tribal cultural resources. As requested by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation during the AB 52 consultation process, future development projects located on one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure TCR-1 which requires consultation with identified Native American tribal groups prior to approval of the proposed future development project. Additionally, as the NAHC SLF search identified a positive result, future development projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TCR-2 which outlines procedures in the event of inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 require that before any development or redevelopment activities can occur, the site must be analyzed for conformance with the applicable local, state, and federal requirements, and must comply with the requirements of CEQA. The City will work with the tribe to address any artifacts unearthed during construction in accordance with the mitigation measures. Working directly with the tribe and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts and impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The City, including the ORCC Specific Plan Project site, is located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources. Additional study of ORCC Specific Plan Project site is recommended to fully assess future project impacts on tribal cultural resources. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements. Any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area shall consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative. The project shall be analyzed in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on an individual project level to identify any existing tribal cultural resources that may be onsite. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be onsite, the appropriate tribal group shall be consulted. If additional tribal consultation is determined to be required, it shall be conducted in conformance with AB 52, SB 18, and CEQA requirements. MM TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that additional significant site(s) or resource(s) not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but are later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites shall be IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-8 subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, lead agency, and the applicable tribe(s) to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with California Environmental Quality Act requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be contacted and notified of the discovery. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 3.16.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the geographic scope of impacts for tribal cultural resources is limited to the specific project site. The potential for impacts to occur to known and unknown tribal cultural resources is site-specific and cannot combine with cumulative projects to produce a larger impact and therefore, tribal cultural resources do not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, a table of related projects that contribute to cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts is not included within this section. However, a programmatic analysis of cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts is provided below. Based on tribal consultation, research, and the pre-contact context, the area within this Project area of analysis may contain tribal cultural resources that have not been documented or recorded. Additionally, the City is identified to be located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes that the land within cumulative development areas have the potential to contain tribal cultural resources that are not yet known. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Impacts to tribal cultural resources are site-specific and development on cumulative project sites could result in impacts as the cumulative developments are located within the same geographic context for potential tribal cultural resources. The Project and other developments in the City and surrounding communities have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. However, as identified above, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level related to tribal cultural resources. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Tribal Cultural Resources 3.16-9 discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential tribal cultural resources impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Cumulative developments would be anticipated to require and implement mitigation measures similar to those identified for the Project to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to tribal cultural resources. 3.16.5 References Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In R. Heizer ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, pp. 538–549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington D.C. Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego. McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press, Banning and Novato, California. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-1 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for utilities and service systems. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to utilities and service systems that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facility, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts would be less than significant. The Project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The impact would be less than significant. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The impact would be less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was considered within the review of the water treatment and water supply, stormwater, and wastewater capacity of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 3.17.1 Environmental Setting Water Supply The City and Golden State Water Company GSWC are retail water suppliers that provide water for their customers using the imported water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, MWDOC and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The City provides water to most of the City with the exception of the Shops at Rossmoor, which is served by an investor-owned water utility, the GSWC. Further development at Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor would be expected to be served by GSWC. Review of the GSWC’s West Orange Service Area 2020 UWMP demonstrates that the GSWC has an intertie with the City and receives a small portion of water from the City. In 2020, the GSWC received 34 AFY from the City (GSWC 2021). The City’s and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP indicate that both water retailers can provide sufficient water through additional purchases from MWDOC or groundwater sources managed by OCWD. The City’s Water Division operates three active groundwater wells, an active service connection with MWDOC via the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB), emergency interconnections with other IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-2 utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations, four production wells, approximately 680 hydrants and manages 74.8-mile water mains system with approximately 5,300 service connections. Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF for potable use. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water. There is currently no recycled water available for use within the City’s service area (City of Seal Beach 2021). The GSWC West Orange Services Area covers approximately 15.4 square miles in western Orange County and delivers potable water to approximately 114,000 customers including the Cities of Cyprus, Stanton, Los Alamitos, and small portions to the Cities of Seal Beach, Garden Grove, and La Palma and some adjacent unincorporated county customers. GSWC West Oranges Service Area has 27,643 water service connections (GSWC 2021). Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, the West Orange Service Area’s system is comprised of fourteen active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of 11,850 gallons per minute, owned and operated by GSWC. These well sites are disinfected locally with 12.5 percent sodium-hypochlorite injection solution. The groundwater is blended with water purchased from MWDOC. The West Orange Service Area’s system has four emergency interconnections to allow sharing of supplies during short term emergencies or planned shutdowns. These interconnections include connections to the City of Garden Grove, the City of Seal Beach as mentioned previously, the City of Buena Park, and GWSC’s Artesia System (GSWC 2021). Water Conservation Retail water suppliers are required to comply with the requirements of Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), which was signed into law in 2010 and requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by 2020 from a 2013 baseline. The City met its 2020 water use target and is in compliance with SB X7-7; the actual 2020 consumption was 95 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is below its 2020 target of 142 GPCD (City of Seal Beach 2021). GSWC met its 2020 established water use target of 141 GPCD by achieving 111 GPCD and is also in compliance with SB X7-7 (GSWC 2021). Water Code Section 10632 requires that every urban water supplier that serves more than 3,000 AF per year or have more than 3,000 connections prepared and adopt a standalone Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as part of its UWMP. The City’s 2020 UWMP as well as GSWC’s 2020 UWMP both include their respective WSCP which provide real-time water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions. The WSCP serves as an operating manual that both the City and GSWC will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The WSCP IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-3 contains processes and procedures documented in the WSCP, which are given legal authority through the Water Shortage Contingency Response Ordinance. The WSCPs have prescriptive elements, including an analysis of water supply reliability; the drought shortage actions for each of the six standard water shortage levels, that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 10 percent to greater than 50 percent; an estimate of potential to close supply gap for each measure; protocols and procedures to communicate identified actions for any current or predicted water shortage conditions; procedures for an annual water supply and demand assessment; monitoring and reporting requirements to determine customer compliance; and reevaluation and improvement procedures for evaluating the WSCP (City of Seal Beach 2021). Regarding the City of Seal Beach, when shortage conditions arise, the City’s governing body, its staff, and the public can easily identify and efficiently implement pre-determined steps to mitigate a water shortage to the level appropriate to the degree of water shortfall anticipated. For GSWC, the WSCP is required to identify locally appropriate shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage stages and include demand reduction actions, supply augmentation actions, system operational changes, and mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions. For each response action the WSCP is to provide an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action (GSWC 2021). Water Demands and Project Growth to 2045 According to the City’s UWMP, water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF of potable use. A stable trend is expected in the future as the City is essentially built-out and is projected to add minimum land use and small population increases (expected to increase by only 1.5 percent over the 25-year period from 2020 to 2045). Additionally, water conservation efforts in the City kept per capita water use down (City of Seal Beach 2021). In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water. The City’s UWMP states that water demand is likely to decrease 3 percent between 2020 to 2025; however, in the long term, water demand is projected to increase 4.1 percent from 2025 through 2045. The projected water use for 2045 is estimated to be 3,306 AF (City of Seal Beach 2021). Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area’s projected population is based on the 2020 estimated population and projected growth from SCAG. The projected growth rate for the City of Cyprus was used to project the growth rate for GSWC’s West Orange Service Area through 2045. Water demand is expected to grow due to the growth in population and is projected to be 15,759 AF in 2045 (GSWC 2021). Wastewater The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater from collection pipes to OC San trunk pipes IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-4 to transport wastewater for treatment and disposal. The sewer collection system owned by the City encompasses about 1,705 acres, includes approximately 34 miles of sewer main, and serves about 5,000 customers. The City collects wastewater from approximately 90 percent of the City, including Leisure World but excluding Bixby Ranch, The Shops at Rossmoor, and the Surfside residential community. Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City of Seal Beach with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. The Bixby Ranch and the existing Shops at Rossmoor are served by the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District, and Surfside residential community is served by the Sunset Beach Sanitary District (City of Seal Beach 2018). Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, would likely receive wastewater services from the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. Similar to the City, wastewater is collected by the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District and ultimately flows to OC San for treatment and disposal (Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District 2001). The wastewater collected in the City’s system is conveyed to OC San’s extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (MGD) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. In 2020, 2,520 AF of wastewater was collected from the City (City of Seal Beach 2021). Storm and Drainage The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. Energy and Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. Solid Waste Republic Services provides solid waste (trash) services for the City except for Leisure World which is served by Athens Services. Telecommunications A variety of private telecommunications systems are offered within Seal Beach, including Spectrum, Verizon, and Frontier. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-5 3.17.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act Section 304 of the CWA establishes primary drinking water standards and requires states to ensure that potable water retailed to the public meets these standards. State primary and secondary drinking water standards are promulgated in CCR Title 22, Sections 64431–64501. Secondary drinking water standards incorporate non-health risk factors including taste, odor, and appearance. The NPDES regulates the discharge of drainage to surface waters. Federal NPDES regulations are administered by the SWRCB and through the RWQCB. The City is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. State Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State of California established the SWRCB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs, through Porter- Cologne. Through the enforcement of Porter Cologne, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the state, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the RWQCB, are authorized to prescribe Waste Discharge Requirements for the discharge of waste, which may impact the waters of the state. Furthermore, the development of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, is required by Porter-Cologne to protect water quality. The SWRCB issues both general construction permits and individual permits under the auspices of the federal NPDES program. Urban Water Management Planning Act In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610–10656). The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 AFY shall prepare and adopt an UWMP. Water suppliers are required to prepare a UWMP within a year of becoming an urban water supplier and update the plan at least once every five years. The Urban Water Management Planning Act also specifies the content that is to be included in an UWMP. It is the intention of the legislature to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the number of customers served and the volume of water supplied. The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that urban water suppliers should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in their water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. The Urban Water Management Planning Act also states that the management of urban water demands, and the efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources. The City’s 2020 UWMP was adopted in June 2021. Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation In 2018, the state legislature passed AB 1668 and SB 606, the Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation, which took effect in January 2025. The regulation directs the State Water Board to IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-6 establish individualized efficiency goals and performance measures for each Urban Retail Water Supplier. The goals are based on the supplier’s service area and give suppliers flexibility to implement locally appropriate solutions. The goal of this regulation is to reduce urban water use by over 400,000 AF by 2030. California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939 and AB 341) To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation (i.e., recycling) and land disposal, the Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s AB 939 plan will be integrated within its respective county plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. In 2010, the state legislature passed AB 341 (Chesbro) which set a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020, which is anticipated to be achieved through source reduction, recycling, and continued diversion of materials such as organic wastes. California Senate Bill 1383 SB 1383 mandates a significant reduction in organic waste sent to landfills, aiming to reduce methane emissions from landfills, a major source of greenhouse gases. Beginning is 2022 SB 1383 requires reduction of organic waste within landfills. The law sets the following targets for 2025: (1) 75 percent less organic waste sent to landfills; and (2) 20 percent of unsold, still-edible food sent to food recovery organizations. Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to utilities and service systems are presented below: Housing Element Update Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents. • Policy 1f: Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems. Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-7 • Policy 2d: Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are: o located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities; o adequately served by public utilities; o adequately served by police and fire protection; o minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or other environmental constraints; and o outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households. Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. • Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.37, Water Shortage Contingency Response, of the City’s Municipal Code outlines permanent mandatory water conservation measures that include baseline conservation measures to be taken in times of normal water supply conditions. These permanent mandatory water conservation measures include, but are not limited to, limits on watering hours, control of runoff water, limits on watering duration, and guidelines for washing vehicles and equipment. 3.17.3 Environmental Impacts This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant utilities and service systems impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts. Methodology for Analysis The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the Project site, including the General Plan, UWMP, the WSA prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix G), and Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR. The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the Project related to utilities and service systems in the City. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s utilities and service system impacts are significant. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-8 Would the Project: • Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? • 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? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant and are not discussed further in this section. Would the Project: • Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or other impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste? Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities Impact UTIL-1 The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impact Analysis The Project does not propose any development. However, the Project would identify a series of implementing actions, including rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites, establishment of a new zoning designation, and implementation of the Main Steet Program, to increase housing development capacity within the City that would induce population growth. Therefore, increased demand for utilities and facilities would occur incrementally as future developments are proposed on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. Future developments facilitated by the Project would occur and may be subject to discretionary permits as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. The majority of the City’s developable area is already developed, and nearly all the Housing Opportunity Sites and the area within the Main Street Program are already developed with some sort of active use and are served by existing utilities. In general, some future developments within the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area would require minor tie-ins, or the construction IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-9 of short utility lines or piping, to utilities that are already present in adjacent roadways, the construction of which would not result in significant environmental impacts. Development on Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive may require upsizing of water mains to mitigate fire flow deficiencies (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo site-specific utilities design analysis when proposed. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be developed on an existing golf course adjacent to developed areas of the city. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require minor tie-ins, service connections, or the construction of short utility lines or piping, to existing utilities that are already present on the existing site or in adjacent roadways that would occur as part of construction. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Water Facilities The City owns and maintains the water distribution system that provides water service to the City’s residents and businesses, excluding The Shops at Rossmoor that receives water service from the GSWC. As discussed above, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo environmental review when proposed and project applicants would be required to ensure that the City has sufficient capacity to provide water as specific development projects are proposed. Future developments under the Project would also be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. For outdoor water use, the CALGreen Code requires that irrigation controllers be weather- or soil moisture–based and automatically account for rainfall or be attached to a rainfall sensor. Additionally, future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would minimize the potable water demand generated and lessen the need for capacity or other improvements to the water system. Future developments would be expected to connect to the City’s water supply system and GSWC’s West Orange system (Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor) and would provide infrastructure/pipelines that are adequately sized to accommodate its potable water and fire flow demands. Future development of Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive, may result in deficiencies of the existing water infrastructure to deliver adequate fire flow to the site (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid. All future development projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program shall be required to provide supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed future development project would require improvements to the water facilities to meet the state, County, IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-10 and local standards and requirements to serve the future development project site location. As required by Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 described below, if improvements, such as upsizing distribution mains or constructing new public distribution mains, are needed due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the future development project site location, the proposed future development project shall be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in additional demand to water supplies and water system infrastructure. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Wastewater Treatment and Collections System The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal. Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor would receive wastewater services from Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District which collects wastewater then sends it to OC San and Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City of Seal Beach with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. All other Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would receive wastewater collection services from the City. OC San had an estimated average daily flow of 192 MGD during 2023-2024. As discussed under Impact UTIL-3 the Project would have a potential increase of 256,960 gpd of wastewater which would represent a 0.13 percent increase from existing flows. As the Project would result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated at OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater generated by buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be anticipated to be served by OC San’s existing treatment capacity. Additionally, OC San levies connection fees for new or expanded sewer connections, including those to new development. These connection fees help fund the costs associated with providing wastewater facility capacity to both new users requiring new connections, as well as existing users requiring additional capacity. Regardless, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo site- specific analysis when proposed. The City will also ensure that there is adequate sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities at the time specific development projects are proposed. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would reduce the wastewater generated by the future development projects. Future developments would be expected to connect to existing wastewater infrastructure in areas and would provide infrastructure/pipelines that are adequately sized to accommodate its demands or upsize the sewer main to meet the City’s capacity requirements. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-11 Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a potential increase of 26,720 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the total 1,773 units from the Project and the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a total potential increase of 0.14 percent increase from the existing flows of OC San during 2023- 2024. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Stormwater Drainage The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. The existing stormwater drainage facilities serving the City include City facilities as well as USACE/Los Angeles County Flood Control District facilities, Orange County Flood Control District facilities, and private facilities (City of Seal Beach 2008). The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are primarily located in developed areas. Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive is undeveloped and contains pervious surfaces that may increase stormwater flows. However, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo site-specific analysis when proposed. This process would ensure that impacts on the storm drainage system due to new development are considered. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 10.15.065, Storm Drainage, which require storm drainage systems to be designed with adequate capacity to accommodate ultimate development of the drainage area and require all proposed storm drainage facilities plans be approved by the City Engineer. All stormwater infrastructure, including on and offsite improvements, would connect to the City’s existing storm water infrastructure and would be designed to handle the anticipated stormwater runoff. Due to the City’s stormwater regulations, the pre- and post- project drainage would have to be accommodated onsite so the project would not require construction of new storm water treatment and conveyance facilities. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan would be constructed on an existing golf course and, therefore, may lead to an increase in stormwater from new impervious surfaces. However, all developments within the City would be subject to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 10.15.065, Storm Drainage. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-12 Energy and Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are located in a developed area that is situated near existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Individual development would be required to comply with CALGreen and construct energy efficient structures. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to over 21.1 million consumers and Southern California provides electricity to over 15 million customers. The addition of the Project’s dwelling units would represent a negligible increase in customers to both utility retailers (Southern California Gas Company 2025, Southern California Edison 2025). Moreover, the majority of natural gas demand within the state comes from non-residential sources such as commercial, industrial, and transportation (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2024, CEC 2025). Thus, future developments would not be expected to require the construction or expansion of electric power and natural gas facilities. Telecommunications Seal Beach is served by a variety of private telecommunication providers, including Spectrum, Verizon, and Frontier. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are in a developed area that is situated near existing cable, phone, and fiber optic lines. The addition of 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program in a developed area serviced by existing telecommunication providers would not be anticipated to require the construction or expansion of telecommunication facilities. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan would require electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. However, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be constructed in a developed area and would be required to meet all local and state guidelines including CALGreen. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Conclusion Overall, future development construction and operation would result in increased water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications demands, and wastewater generation. Any construction and operational effects on utilities and service systems from future development in accordance with the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for minimizing construction and operational impacts to utilities, including water and wastewater system capacities, solid waste reduction goals, and supplies of electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications. All future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to meet the mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-13 available to serve the development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and adherence to these programs, requirements, and regulations would minimize impacts to utilities and service systems to less than significant levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation. All projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program shall be required to provide supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed site would require improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities to meet the state, County, and local standards and requirements to serve the specific site location. If improvements are required due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the specific site location, the proposed development may be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to all or some combination of the following: • Regarding Housing Opportunity Site 8 development: Additional 12-inch water main to connect to the existing 8-inch water main at Corsair Way and Caravel Way to mitigate fire flow deficiencies. • All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Payment of impact fees, as calculated by the City’s impact fee schedule, proportionate to the project’s fair share contributions to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. • All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, designed to state, County, and local standards and requirements, to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed future development shall be required to contribute payment of required fees at the time of building permit issuance. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-14 Water Supply Impact UTIL-2 The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impact Analysis According to the 2020 UWMPs for the City of Seal Beach and for GSWC West Orange Service Area, the projected supplies available to each retailer during any normal, single dry, or multiple consecutive dry water years out to 2045 would be adequate to meet the demands; however, these demands did not account for the increased water demand resulting from the Project. Therefore, the Project requires preparation of a WSA to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve buildout of the Project. A WSA was prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix G). As identified in the WSA, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area have existing structures that have existing water uses. These existing water demands were a part of the City’s and GSWC’s demand analysis in their respective 2020 UWMPs and therefore, the WSA calculated the additional demand that would result at these sites from buildout of the Project. The Housing Element Update plans for up to 1,339 new dwelling units in the City by 2029 to accommodate its RHNA allocation of 1,243 units. However, the assumed residential development potential of the Housing Element Update is developed using conservative assumptions that would develop the Housing Opportunity Sites below the maximum allowable density. For the purposes of analysis contained in this EIR, a more intense level of development (maximum buildout) was analyzed so that potential impacts resulting from projects that might propose maximum developable densities are considered as part of this EIR. Therefore, the analysis contained herein as well as the analysis contained in the WSA assumed maximum buildout under the Project. The WSA determined that the maximum buildout scenario of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program would result in an additional water demand of 361,350 gpd or 405 AFY. This includes 139 AFY for Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor served by GSWC, and 266 AFY for the remaining seven Housing Opportunity Sites served by the City of Seal Beach. During dry years the demands area expected to increase to a total of 435 AFY, which includes 153 AFY for Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor, and 282 AFY for the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites. The WSA compared the percentage increase in water demand over a 25-year period due to the Project for a normal year and the highest demand from the five-year period of multiple dry years as a worst-case scenario for portions of the Project served by the City of Seal Beach and GSWC. See Table 3.17-1 and Table 3.17-2 below for a comparison of each of the 2020 UWMP’s projected supply and demand, as well as projected demand with the additional Project demand during normal years. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-15 Table 3.17-1: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AFY) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AFY) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Projected Demand +Additional Project Demand (AFY) minus Housing Opportunity Site 4 3,175 3,634 3,608 3,583 3,572 Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% Additional Supply Required 0 266 266 266 266 Table 3.17-2: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AFY) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AFY) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Projected Demand + Housing Opportunity Site 4 Additional Project Demand (AFY) 14,137 14,666 15,065 15,476 15,898 Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Additional Supply Required 0 139 139 139 139 As shown in the tables above, an additional supply of 266 AFY and 139 AFY would be required during normal years to serve the projected City and GSWC’s demand with the additional Project demand, respectively. See Table 3.17-3 and Table 3.17-4 for a comparison of supply versus demand for the most severe year within the multiply dry year period for the City and for GSWC, respectively. Like the City’s 2020 UWMP, the WSA assumed the same percentage increase (6 percent) above average supply for the additional water demand from the Project during dry years. As such, using the 6 percent increase from 266 AF equals 282 AF of additional supply required for the City. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-16 Table 3.17-3: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Projected Demand + Additional Project Demand (AF) 3,366 3,852 3,825 3,798 3,786 Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% Additional Supply Required 0 282 282 282 282 In accordance with GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, a 10 percent increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for GSWC’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 10 percent increase applied to GSWC’s portion of the Project demand of 139 AF, GSWC would require a total supply of 153 AF during multiple dry years. Table 3.17-4: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Projected Demand + Additional Project Demand (AF) 15,893 16,483 16,933 17,395 17,488 Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Additional Supply Required 0 153 153 153 153 As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an approximate 8 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands for the City, and approximately 1 percent increase in supply is required to meet the demands for GSWC. According to both the City’s 2020 UWMP and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, after 2025, the BPP within the OC Basin is assumed to be set at 85 percent for retail water suppliers. This would mean that the portfolio for each retail water supplier that pumps groundwater from the OC Basin, would be composed of 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water. As part of the OCWD’s Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. OCWD assesses the basin annually and sets a BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the retail water supplier’s total water demand that comes from groundwater. l l I l I I I I I I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-17 The BPP is based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from MET, the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish an RA based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a BEA fee. OCWD forecasts that the basin will be able to sustain a BPP of 85 percent beyond 2025 to meet demands from groundwater producers. Since the BPP is established annually by OCWD’s assessment of the OC Basin, the BPP is subject to change. For this analysis, the BPP is assumed to be held at 85 percent through 2045. The City’s and GSWC’s projected water supplies identified in their respective 2020 UWMPs would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project. However, each retail water supplier would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Imported MET water purchases through MWDOC and groundwater production within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination based on the estimated demands and various other factors in Orange County. These estimated demands will include the Project starting in 2029. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. With the BPP set at 85 percent, the Project’s demand increase of 435 AF during dry years would require total additional ground water pumping of 370 AF and total additional purchasing of 65 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.1 percent increase in total groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the total estimated average water purchased from MWDOC for retail sales. Each retail water supplier’s portion of the Project is presented in Table 3.17-5. Table 3.17-5: Summary of Groundwater and Imported Water Sources for Project Retail Water Suppliers based on BPP of 85 Percent during dry years Retail Water Supplier Groundwater (AFY) Imported Water (AFY) Total (AFY) City of Seal Beach (Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, Main Street Program) 240 42 282 GSWC West Orange Service Area (Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor) 130 23 153 Additional Supply Required 370 65 435 For any demands beyond the annual estimates within the retail water suppliers service area, the retail water supplier may either have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-18 OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA or would need to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. As shown in Table 3.17-5, Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, is anticipated to receive water distribution service from GSWC. The remaining Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would be served by the City of Seal Beach. This has been accounted for in the additional demand from the Project the supply analysis described in the WSA, and there would be adequate water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to water supplies. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The WSA determined that the maximum buildout scenario of the seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program served by the City would result in an additional water demand of 266 AFY (1,054 dwelling units) for a normal water year. Scaling to the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, the additional 167 units would result in an additional water demand of 42 AFY for a total of 308 AFY above the projected demands established in the City’s 2020 UWMP. With the additional demands associated with the Project, the City would require additional water supplies to be able to meet the City’s projected overall demand. As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, an approximate 9.3 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. With the BPP set at 85 percent, additional demands of 308 AF would require ground water pumping of 262 AF and purchasing of 46 AF from imported sources for the City. This represents approximately a 0.12 percent increase in groundwater production over the estimated annual average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the estimated annual average MET water purchased for retail sales. For any demands beyond the annual estimates, the City may have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA. The other option would be to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-19 Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Impact UTIL-3 The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impact Analysis As outlined in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal. Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor would receive wastewater services from Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District which collects wastewater then sends it to OC San, and Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2) (City of Seal Beach 2021). As identified on OC San’s website, in 2023-2024 the estimated average daily flow of wastewater received at Plant No. 1 was 124 MGD and 68 MGD at Plant No. 2 for a total wastewater received of 192 MGD (OC San 2024). The City’s 2018 Sewer System Master Plan includes unit flow factors based on various land uses to calculate the amount of potential wastewater flows. For a high-density residential development, the unit flow factor is identified as 160 gpd per dwelling unit (City of Seal Beach 2018). The Project’s maximum buildout scenario would result in construction of up to 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program. Utilizing the unit flow factor identified in the City’s Sewer System Master Plan, 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program developed as high-density residential uses would result in 256,960 gallons of wastewater produced per day. As identified above, OC San had an estimated average daily flow of 192 MGD during 2023-2024. Therefore, the potential increase of 256,960 gpd of wastewater would represent a 0.13 percent increase from existing flows. As the Project would result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated at OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater generated by buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be anticipated to be served by OC San’s existing treatment capacity. Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed. In addition, OC San levies connection fees for new or expanded sewer connections, including those to new development. These connection fees help fund the costs associated with providing wastewater facility capacity to both new users requiring new connections, as well as existing users requiring additional capacity. Future developments under the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements related to wastewater treatment during construction and operations. Future developments would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would reduce the wastewater generated. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-20 Future buildout of development projects facilitated the Project would occur incrementally and would be required to consult with the wastewater treatment provider to ensure that they have adequate capacity to treat the increased amount of wastewater generated by the proposed development. Through personal conversations with the City of Seal Beach, regarding the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, the Project poses no significant impacts to the existing wastewater infrastructure. The Project is not anticipated to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a potential increase of 26,720 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the total 1,773 dwelling units from the Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a total potential increase of 0.14 percent increase from the existing flows of OC San during 2023-2024. Therefore, implementation of the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would continue to result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated as OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. 3.17.4 Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the geographic scope of impacts for utilities and service systems is limited to a local geographic area. Cumulative impacts on the utility and service IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-21 systems include impacts from the Project as well as the ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project. It should be noted that the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project are being evaluated in respective standalone EIR’s. See Table 3.17-6. Table 3.17-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Utility and Service Systems # Project Name Location Project Characteristics Status Total Residential Dwelling Units 1 Old Ranch Country Club Project Old Ranch Country Club, City of Seal Beach Construction of a 116-unit, 4-level (188,500 square feet) multi-family housing development; a 51-unit, 3-level senior housing complex; medical office facility; overnight accommodation, including a bar and lounge and specialty restaurant Preparation of EIR 167 4 Lampson Project 4665 Lampson Avenue, City of Los Alamitos Redevelopment of existing office building with a residential development consisting of cluster homes, townhomes, and apartments totaling 246 units Approved (By City of Los Alamitos) 246 Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects like the ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project, would increase housing development and could result in increased water demands requiring additional water supply and increased wastewater generation. It is estimated that water demands would increase by 42 AF and 51 AF (Lampson EIR), respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project. Wastewater generation is estimated to increase by 26,720 gpd and 49,468 gpd (Lampson EIR) respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project. Including the Project, the additional water demand from the cumulative developments equates to a total water demand increase of 498 AF during normal years. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD it is anticipated that these demands can be met with the established BPP and imported water purchases from MWDOC at the time of project development and will have a less than significant impact. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-22 Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed. Regarding utility and service system facilities, the potential for cumulative impacts in conjunction with cumulative development is not anticipated. The impacts posed by the Project and cumulative projects are site specific and may impact the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of those projects only. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects are not anticipated due to the proximity of the cumulative developments to the Project. Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. A standalone EIR was prepared for the Lampson Project (SCH. No. 2022090476) and identified less than significant impacts to the wastewater infrastructure from the Lampson Project. This information is included in this EIR for discussion purposes. However, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects may result in deficiencies to the exiting wastewater infrastructure. Future impacts shall be analyzed at the time of project specific evaluation. Unless exempt, future developments on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each individual project, unless exempt, would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. 3.17.5 References City of Los Alamitos. 2024. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH. No. 2022090476 for 4665 Lampson Avenue City of Los Alamitos, California, April 24, 2024. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281692- 3/attachment/VLJG0qJs5Z4kjxubCrGFsP1owcztXZS4t5bFT6Sj0UsvHq- _UtkBNAhO0oLXp5XH9dhlj4wXQvcejRsM0. Accessed April 2025. City of Seal Beach. 2008. Drainage Master Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Attachment%208%20Section%201%20Execu tive%20Summary.pdf#:~:text=The%20objective%20of%20this%20Master%20Plan%20of%20Drai nage,facilities%20in%20an%20efficient%20and%20cost%20effective%20manner. Accessed March 2025. _____. 2018. Sewer Master Plan, February 2018. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Draft%202018%20Sewer%20Master%20Plan .pdf. Accessed October 2024. _____. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Utilities and Service Systems 3.17-23 0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793. Accessed October 2024. California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2024. 2024 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-California-Gas-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed March 2025. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2025. Electricity Consumption. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0. Accessed March 2025. Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2021. West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680% 2FGSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf. Accessed March 2025. Orange County Sanitation District (OC San). 2024. Facts and Key Statistics. https://www.ocsan.gov/wp- content/uploads/2024/10/Facts-and-Key-Statistics.pdf. Accessed October 2024. Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. 2001. 2001 Sewer Master Plan Update. https://rossmoorlosalamitossd.specialdistrict.org/files/c46d787ec/RLASD+SewerMasterPlan+Rep ort.pdf. Accessed March 2025. Southern California Gas. 2025. About Us. https://www.socalgas.com/about-us. Accessed March 2025. Southern California Edison. 2025. About Us. https://www.sce.com/about-us. Accessed March 2025. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-1 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of an alternatives analysis pursuant to CEQA is to identify feasible options that would attain most of the basic objectives of a proposed project while reducing its significant effects. Provisions of CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) that address the number of project alternatives required in an EIR state the following: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. The alternatives shall be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of a proposed project while meeting most of the underlying project objectives. 4.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES An important aspect of EIR preparation is the identification and assessment of alternatives to the proposed project that have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts. In addition to mandating consideration of the no project alternative, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)) emphasize the selection of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives and adequate assessment, which allows decision-makers to use a comparative analysis. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(a)) states: An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6, this EIR contains a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the Project. The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide decision-makers and the public with a reasonable number of feasible Project alternatives that could attain most of the basic Project objectives while avoiding or reducing any of the Project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives’ analyses are provided below: • An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; • Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: o Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-2 o Infeasibility o Inability to avoid significant environmental effects 4.2.1 No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines require that the alternatives be compared to the project’s environmental impacts and that the “no project” alternative be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)(e)). Section 15126.6(d)(e)(1) states: The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving the Project. 4.2.2 Consistency with Project Objectives A project’s statement of objectives describes the purpose of the project and the reasons for undertaking the project. To be considered for detailed analysis in the EIR, an alternative must meet most of the project objectives. The following lists the basic objectives of the Project for purposes of screening potential alternatives: • Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. • Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. • Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. • Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. • Affirmatively further fair housing. 4.2.3 Feasibility According to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)(1): Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-3 plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. Based on CEQA Guidelines, “feasible” is defined as, “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). CEQA does not require that an EIR determine the ultimate feasibility of a selected alternative, but rather that an alternative be potentially feasible. For the screening analysis, the potential feasibility of potential alternatives was assessed using the following considerations: • Technological Feasibility: Is the alternative feasible from a technical perspective, considering available technology? Are there any construction, operation, or maintenance constraints that cannot be overcome? • Legal Feasibility: For example, do legal protections on lands or financing strategies preclude or substantially limit the feasibility of constructing the alternative? • Economic Feasibility: Is the alternative so costly that its costs would prohibit its implementation? In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the Project, the Project’s significant effects, and unique Project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, an EIR must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body (PRC Section 21081[a][3]). 4.3 METHODOLOGY AND SCREENING CRITERIA A range of potential alternatives was developed and subjected to the screening criteria. Several representative alternatives were considered. There was no attempt to include every conceivable alternative. The following criteria were used to screen potential alternatives: • Does the alternative meet most of the Project objectives? • Is the alternative potentially feasible? • Would the alternative substantially reduce one or more of the significant impacts associated with the Project? The 167 dwelling units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 dwelling units are included within the City’s site IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-4 inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project. As such, neither the ORCC Specific Plan Project nor the 167 dwelling units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are considered in the alternatives evaluation in this EIR. 4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re Bay- Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167) In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the Project, the Project’s significant effects, and unique Project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision-makers. (See PRC, Section 21081[a][3]). At the time of action on the Project, the decision-makers may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision-makers, for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-makers adopt a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998.) The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following alternatives were considered but are not evaluated further in this Draft EIR for the reasons discussed below. 4.4.1 Reduce Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and VMT Impacts The Draft EIR determined that future developments under the Project would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions, and VMT. Developing an environmental alternative to reduce the determination to less than significant while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. To reduce the air quality, GHG, and VMT impacts, the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-5 residential population in the City would need to increase without increasing daily trips per person so that the population growth outpaces VMT. A robust transit system including high priority transit areas and sufficient transit infrastructure linking jobs with housing would be required to accomplish this objective. While there is some transit serving the City, it is not sufficiently robust to be considered as a means of significantly reducing VMT. As identified previously, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program are distributed throughout the City with the majority of the sites located within the northern portion of the City. For transit to make enough of a reduction in vehicle trips to reduce VMT and then by extension air quality and GHG emissions, it would need to be available throughout the City, and with sufficient frequency that it would encourage ridership. As this potential is well beyond the Project that is focused on increasing zoning for residential uses and involves a shift from personal car use to transit that is not currently possible, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR. 4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland The Draft EIR determined that future developments under the Project would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to parkland. Developing an alternative to reduce the determination to less than significant by providing more parkland while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. Under this alternative, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to dedicate a portion of the project site for development of onsite parkland. This alternative would require developing the sites at a higher density than was envisioned in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the allocation of a portion of the project site for parkland uses and would require an increase in vertical development to accommodate the higher density required on the same size parcels. The City has a desired acreage requirement of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As identified in Section 3.14, Recreation, of this Draft EIR, the resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area has a total land area of 104.45-acres; however, only 56.05-acres of the total land area is developable. Therefore, there would not be enough land available within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area to accommodate the additional parkland required while also providing enough dwelling units to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. This alternative was determined to not be feasible and therefore, this alternative was not further analyzed in this Draft EIR. 4.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternatives to the Project considered for analysis in this Draft EIR are: • No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative 4.5.1 No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that certification of the Housing Element Update would not occur and the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of specific parcels proposed as part of the Project would not occur. The six rezone sites identified for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites would not be rezoned to the new MC/RHD zoning district and would continue to be IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-6 zoned its existing zoning designations. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes to amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second story of structures within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not occur. Table 4.5-1 below outlines the existing zoning designations for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program and the allowable dwelling units based on the existing zoning designations. Table 4.5-1: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Buildout Assumption Site Name Existing Zoning Dwelling Units based on Existing Zoning Housing Opportunity Site 1 - 1780 Pacific Coast Highway RMD 5 Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World RHD-PD 177 Housing Opportunity Site 3 - Accurate Storage RHD-20 36 Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor GC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 5 - Old Ranch Town Center GC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 6 - Seal Beach Plaza SC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 7 - Seal Beach Center SC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive OE 0 Main Street Program MSSP 0 Total Units 218 Notes: RMD designation allow duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. RHD designation allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. The maximum density allowed for Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World is 32.2 dwelling units per acre. RHD-20 designation allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 dwelling units per net acre. GC designation does not permit any residential uses. SC designation permits two-unit residential (duplex) if an existing use; new uses are prohibited. OE designation does not permit any residential uses. MSSP designation permits single-unit and multi-unit residential developments if an existing use; new uses are prohibited. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the buildout assumptions for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would be 218 dwelling units based on the existing zoning designations. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the Housing Element and Zone Code Updates would not be implemented by the City and the current Housing Element and Zone Code would remain in effect. Land use densities and zoning would remain unchanged and development would be consistent with the existing zoning designation. Additionally, as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project would require land use amendments and rezoning from the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation to allow for the development of the ORCC Specific Plan, the 167 units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is not included within this alternatives analysis. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-7 Impact Analysis Aesthetics Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the three Housing Opportunity Sites that allow for residential uses under the existing zoning designation would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning designation for the sites and the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area would not be redeveloped. This alternative would result in less potential future developments compared to the Project; however, it would still result in future developments that would change the existing character of the sites. The City’s Municipal Code and General Plan identify development standards to ensure quality development in the City and any aesthetics related policies in the existing Housing Element would continue to be implemented. The aesthetic impacts would be similar to the Project and would be less than significant. Air Quality Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, rezoning of City land and increases in development density would not occur. The potential future development buildout under this alternative would be significantly less than compared to the Project and would result in lesser levels of criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the Project. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures to reduce potential construction and operational emissions; however, as this alternative would require significantly less construction and would result in development of significantly less dwelling units than the Project, air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than impacts of the Project. Biological Resources Under this alternative, future developments would only take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. As identified in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, there are no special-status plant or wildlife species that have the potential to occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. However, potential presence for bird species protected under the MBTA was identified for all Housing Opportunity Sites due to the potential for birds to nest in the trees that are dispersed throughout each site. Therefore, there would be a potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3 under this alternative. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project for preconstruction surveys for bird species and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Cultural Resources Under this alternative, future developments could result in potential impacts to cultural resources, including historic and archaeological resources, similar to the Project. As identified in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 2 include structures that are potentially 45 years or older and an identified historical resource (Naval Weapons Station) is located adjacent to Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 3. Therefore, future developments under this alternative has the potential to directly and indirectly affect historical resources and would require further evaluation to IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-8 identify potential impacts. Additionally, as the City has a high sensitivity to precontact and historic period archaeological cultural resources, future developments under this alternative could result in discovery of previously unidentified archaeological resources. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Energy Under this alternative, development of future developments would result in increased construction and operational energy demand from existing conditions. However, as identified in Section 3.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR, future developments under the Project would not result in significant increases in energy usage and impacts would be less than significant. Though future developments under this alternative would increase energy demand and consumption from existing conditions, as this alternative would result in development of less dwelling units than the Project, future developments under this alternative would not result in significant increases in energy usage. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Geology and Soils Under this alternative, future developments would take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. As identified in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR, new ground disturbance that occurs in geologic units with high paleontological potential may encounter paleontological resources. This could occur at any depth in the Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 3, and at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet at the Housing Opportunity Site 2. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, rezoning of City land and increases in development density would not occur. The potential future development buildout under this alternative would be significantly less than compared to the Project and would result in lesser levels of GHG emissions compared to the Project. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures to reduce potential GHG emissions; however, as this alternative would require significantly less construction and would result in development of significantly less dwelling units than the Project, GHG impacts under this alternative would be less than impacts of the Project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under this alternative, future developments would take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. As identified in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, all Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the AIA for the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the southern half of Main Street Program. As future developments under this alternative would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning designation of the sites and would not propose General Plan or zoning code amendments, future developments under this alternative would not be subject to IJ 4-9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project review by the Orange County ALUC. The Project was determined to result in less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and as this alternative would result in less than significant impact, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Hydrology and Water Quality Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3 are developed with existing uses and therefore, development of these sites under this alternative are not anticipated to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. However, future developments under this alternative would result in increased water demand from existing conditions which may result in increased demand to groundwater pumping for the City to supply adequate water to its customers. Operation of future developments under this alternative could potentially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff and could create flood hazards. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new developments would be required to comply with City Municipal Code requirements related to stormwater management similar to the Project. However, as there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City, future developments under this alternative may result in flooding related impacts due to the existing drainage system in the City not providing adequate capacity, similar to the Project. Therefore, future developments under this alternative would require implementation of similar mitigation measures identified fort he Project to prepare an evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development would have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures as those identified for the Project to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Land Use and Planning Under this alternative, a total of 218 dwelling units would be planned for within the City, compared to the Project’s 1,606 dwelling units across the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. The six Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning under the Project would not be rezoned and would remain its existing zoning designation. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes amendments to allow for development of second story dwelling units within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not be implemented. As the purpose of this Project is to plan for the future development of dwelling units to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs, this alternative would not accomplish this goal. The City’s has an RHNA of 1,243 dwelling units within the current planning period. This alternative would only provide for the planning of 218 dwelling units and would not meet the RHNA requirement for the City. Even with inclusion of anticipated ADUs and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project identified by the City to meet RHNA, this alternative would not provide for the planning of enough units for the City to meet its RHNA. Therefore, this alternative would not contribute toward the City’s RHNA numbers and would result in a greater land use and planning impact compared to the Project. Noise Future developments under this alternative would result in increased construction and operation noise in the vicinity of Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. The Project was determined to result in temporary and permanent increase in noise and vibration levels from future developments under the Project due to IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-10 construction and operational activities. However, all impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 3.11, Noise. Future developments under this alternative would be required to implement similar mitigation measures as those identified in this Draft EIR to reduce construction and operational noise as it would result in activities that would introduce new noise generating uses at the sites. However, future developments under this Project would require less construction activities and would result in a smaller increase in traffic noise within the City. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project. Population and Housing As identified in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the City has an average household size of 1.8 persons per household. This alternative would result in the planning of 218 dwelling units which would result in a population growth of 392 residents. This alternative would generate significantly less new residents compared to the Project’s projected generation of 2,891 residents. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project. Public Services Under this alternative, increases in demand for public services including fire and police protection and parks from existing conditions would result due to increased population growth from future developments. However, the increase in demand would be less than what would result from future developments facilitated by the Project as this alternative would result in less population growth and development compared to the Project. Though the increase in demand for this alternative would be less than the Project, this alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks. As identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, the City is not currently meeting its desired acreage requirements for parkland and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecasted demand that would be generated by future developments. The City is already at a deficit for park and recreation land and the increased population growth that would result from this alternative would increase the deficit. Therefore, impacts to public services under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project. Recreation As stated above, under this alternative, increases in demand for park and recreational facilities would result due to increased population growth from future developments. Though the increase in demand would be less than what would result from future developments facilitated by the Project, this alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks. The City is not currently meeting its desired acreage requirements for parkland and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecasted demand that would be generated by future developments. The City is already at a deficit for park and recreation land and the increased population growth that would result from this alternative would increase the deficit. Therefore, impacts to recreation under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-11 Transportation Under this alternative. traffic conditions at the future development sites and in the vicinity would change from existing conditions and additional traffic would be generated from construction and operational activities. However, compared to future developments facilitated by the Project, this alternative would result in a smaller increase in additional traffic as future developments under this alternative would develop significantly less dwelling units. As identified in Section 3.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, individual development of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program were determined to result in VMT generation that would be above the threshold of significance. Therefore, development of Housing Opportunity Site 1 under this alternative would continue to result in VMT generation that would be above the threshold of significance as this alternative would develop Housing Opportunity Site 1 with the same number of units as the Project. As identified in Section 3.15, Transportation, Housing Opportunity Site 2 was determined to generate VMT at below the threshold of significance and as development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 under this alternative would continue to develop the site with the same number of units as proposed under the Project, development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 under this alternative would generate VMT at below the threshold of significance. Development of Housing Opportunity Site 3 with 36 units under this alternative compared to the Project’s 83 units would be anticipated to reduce VMT generated at the site to below the threshold of significance. Future developments under this alternative would require implementation of similar mitigation measures as identified for the Project. However, future development of Housing Opportunity Site 1 under this alternative would continue to generate VMT above the threshold of significance. Therefore, impacts to transportation under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project. Tribal Cultural Resources Under this alternative, future developments would occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. As identified in Section 3.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the NAHC SLF search resulted in a positive result for tribal cultural resources and the City is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources. Therefore, future developments under this alternative could require ground-disturbing activities in portions of the City that may have sensitive tribal cultural resources and may cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources by potentially unearthing previously unknown/unrecorded tribal cultural resources. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project. Utilities and Service Systems Under this alternative, future developments would result in increased demand for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and utility infrastructure from existing conditions. However, as this alternative would result in planning for significantly fewer number of dwelling units compared to the Project, the demand generated by this alternative would be less than the demand generated by the Project. As identified in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, with compliance with mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-12 available to serve the development and adherence to existing programs, requirements, and regulations, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, adequate water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity was determined to be available to serve future developments facilitated by the Project. As future developments under this alternative would result in significantly fewer number of dwelling units compared to the Project and thereby less demand, there would be adequate water supplies, wastewater treatment capacity, and utility infrastructure to serve future developments under this alternative. As the increase in demand under this alternative would be less than compared to the Project, impacts under this alternative to utilities and service systems would be less than the Project. Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in less impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, population and housing, and utilities and service systems compared to the Project. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. Finally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts to land use and planning than the Project. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to public services, recreation, and VMT and would not help the City meet its RHNA requirements as it would not plan for enough dwelling units. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet the following Project objectives: • Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. • Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. • Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. • Affirmatively further fair housing. 4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative (Section 15126.6(e)), which is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant impacts of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree attainment of the Project objectives. If it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6(3)). The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the Project are summarized in Table 4.6-1. To quantitatively identify an environmentally superior alternative a value has been applied to each environmental effect. Additionally, Table 4.6-2 provides a comparison of the IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-13 alternatives with the Project objectives. Accordingly, the alternative with the fewest amounts of impacts and the ability to achieve the most Project objectives is the environmentally superior alternative. Table 4.6-1: Project Alternative Impact Comparison Environmental Resource Topic Project No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Aesthetics LTS = Air Quality SU - Biological Resources LTS/M = Cultural Resources LTS/M = Energy LTS = Geology and Soils LTS/M = Greenhouse Gases SU - Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS = Hydrology and Water Quality LTS/M = Land Use and Planning LTS + Noise LTS/M - Population and Housing LTS - Public Services SU = Recreation SU = Transportation SU = Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M = Utilities and Service Systems LTS - Notes: Equal impact (=) Less impact (-) Greater impact (+) Table 4.6-2: Project Alternatives Comparison to Project Objectives Project Objective Project No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. X X Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. X Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. X Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. X Affirmatively further fair housing. X IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4-14 As shown above, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as the significant impact of the Project related to air quality and GHG would be reduced. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would increase potential impacts to land use and planning and would not meet the majority of the Project objectives. As required by CEQA, if it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6(3)). As all other Project Alternatives were considered to be infeasible and rejected from further consideration, the Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would achieve all of the Project objectives and would help the City meet its RHNA requirements. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-1 5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS This section describes the other statutorily required topics including growth inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, and mandatory findings of significance. 5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT PRC Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR. Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance for assessing growth-inducing impacts of a project: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. A project can induce growth directly, indirectly, or both. Direct growth inducement could result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement could result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that indirectly generates the need for additional housing and services to support the temporary demand. Under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area). It should be noted that growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may foreseeably lead to environmental effects. If substantial growth inducement occurs, it can result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased demand for housing, demand for other community and public services and infrastructure capacity, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open space land to urban uses, and other effects. As such, to address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects were addressed by evaluating whether the Project would result in the following: m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-2 Remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area)? Expansion of public services to maintain desired levels of service? Encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? 5.1.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth The implementation of the Project would not remove obstacles to additional growth in this manner as it would be undertaken in an area that currently is served by all utilities and services. Section 3.12, Population and Housing, analyzes the Project’s overall effect on population and housing, including growth-inducing considerations. In terms of housing, implementation of the Project would provide for development of 1,606 maximum dwelling units, resulting in approximately 2,891 residents. The addition of 2,891 residents would increase the City’s existing population of 24,350 residents to 27,241 residents, representing an 11.9 percent increase. The maximum buildout of the Project with 1,606 dwelling units would increase the City’s total dwelling units from 14,678 to 16,284, resulting in a 10.9 percent increase. Additionally, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the proposed buildout of 167 dwelling units included within the City’s site inventory as a pipeline site. Therefore, with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project incorporated, the resulting maximum buildout potential would increase to 1,773 dwelling units. The development 1,773 dwelling units would contribute an estimated population increase of 3,191 residents, which is an approximately 13.1 percent increase to the City’s 2024 population of approximately 24,350 residents. Maximum buildout of these sites would increase the City’s total dwelling units from 14,678 to 16,451. This growth would exceed the City’s population projection for 2045 of 25,400 residents by 2,141 residents. The population growth associated with the Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site would exceed SCAG’s population 2045 projection for the City of 25,400 residents. However, the maximum scenario is highly conservative as it is unlikely that 100 percent of sites would be developed at the capacity analyzed in this EIR. Therefore, a “realistic development capacity” was used to determine the most probable yield of units at sites in the City’s Housing Element site inventory. This scenario assumed development of the five Housing Opportunity Sites being rezoned MC/RHD at 80 percent of maximum allowable density with the remaining three Housing Opportunity Sites at 70 percent of the maximum allowable density. Additionally, the site inventory includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline site that would provide 167 additional units. While under this scenario the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would provide for development of 1,332 dwelling units resulting in approximately 2,397 residents and a total population of 26,747 residents, the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would increase the City’s population by 9.8 percent and still exceed SCAG’s 2045 population projection for the City. • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-3 The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to plan for and promote housing growth within the City to meet the housing needs of the region and the state. While the scenarios exceed the population projections identified by SCAG, it is important to note that the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element Update does not mean that they will be developed at the estimated unit counts or level of affordability. Additionally, several laws passed in recent years, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), aimed to address the need for more housing and expedite approvals for housing projects in order to respond to the state’s housing crisis. Implementation of the Project and future developments consistent with the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the City. As such, the Housing Element Update is the City’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth and the impact would be less than significant. 5.1.2 Expansion of Public Services The Project would increase residents in the City. The Project is expected to incrementally increase the demand for public services for fire and police protections services, which would contribute to the needs to expand facilities to accommodate future growth. The need for additional or expansion of existing public services as a result of future discretionary developments would need to go under CEQA review at a project-specific level. In the event new public service facilities or expansion of public services are required, they would be disclosed and mitigated, as feasible, at a project-specific level. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services, existing programs and policies would ensure that the increase in uses and impacts related to police and fire protection services would be less than significant. 5.1.3 Encourage or Facilitate Economic Effects The construction of future development projects anticipated under the Project would create a number of design, engineering, and construction jobs. Jobs created by the Project would occur until construction of a Project is completed. Additionally, construction employees would be absorbed from the regional labor force, and the construction of future projects are not anticipated to attract new workers to the region. The Project would result in an increase in residents (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing). Future residents of the Project would seek economic opportunities within the City and surrounding area. This would create an increased demand for such economic goods and services and would, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or expansion of existing businesses that address these needs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5.1.4 Encourage or Facilitate Environmental Effects of Growth As discussed, the Project would result in a zone change for six of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the proposed zone change could further induce non-residential zoned sites to be zoned for residential uses. Future development proposals may change districts in the vicinity of the Project. However, these would require full environmental analysis of the impacts of such actions. The Project does not propose changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply with all applicable City plans, m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-4 policies, ordinances, etc. and mitigation measures identified in this EIR to ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations and that any environmental impacts are minimized. Therefore, the Project would not result in precedent-setting actions. The impacts of subsequent similar actions would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that such subsequent impacts would not significantly affect the environment. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires an EIR to “describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.” The Executive Summary contains Table ES-1, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While actions from the Project and mitigation measures, where feasible, would reduce the level of impact to less than significant, the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation measures are applied. 5.2.1 Air Quality The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project would 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. The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to air quality. 5.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gases. 5.2.3 Public Services The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks and recreation. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable public services impact related to parks and recreation facilities. • • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-5 5.2.4 Recreation The Project would 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. The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks and recreation facilities. 5.2.5 Transportation The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable transportation impact related to VMT. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Pursuant to Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must consider any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a project should it be implemented. Section 15126.2(c) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by implementation of the Project include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, construction of future developments facilitated by the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of diesel and gasoline fuel from the use of off-road equipment (i.e., tractors, excavators, cranes) and on-road vehicles (i.e., construction employee commutes, haul trucks). Construction is not anticipated to require natural gas. Temporary electricity may be required to provide as-necessary lighting and electric equipment; such electricity demand would be met by portable generator sets and, possibly, local distribution. With respect to the operational activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project, compliance with all state and local regulations, development standards, and applicable building codes would ensure that natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent practicable. As future construction and operational activities anticipated to occur under the Project would result in the • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Other CEQA Considerations 5-6 irretrievable commitment of non-renewable energy resources, consumption of such resources is associated with any development in the region and is not unique or unusual to the Project. Furthermore, new technologies or systems may emerge or become more cost-effective or user-friendly and would further reduce reliance upon nonrenewable energy resources. The Project would not be expected to result in environmental accidents that have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the natural or human environment. The Project primarily involves the planning for development of future residential projects, which do not generate substantial hazardous materials. Future construction activities associated with the development projects anticipated under the Project would result in the limited use, transport, storage, and disposal of common hazardous materials. However, all activities would comply with applicable federal and state laws related to hazardous materials transport, use, and storage, which would significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage. As the Project does not involve substantial environmental hazards or unreasonably consume non-renewable resources, the irreversible environmental changes that would result from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-1 6.0 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of the potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the details of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effects on the environment be limited to substantial or potentially substantial adverse changes in physical conditions that exist within the affected area, as defined in the PRC Section 21060.5 (Statutory definition of “environment”). Effects determined to be insignificant or unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the Draft EIR unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15143). The Initial Study and NOP were circulated for public review between November 16, 2023 and December 15, 2023 and is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The Public Scoping Meeting on the Draft EIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023. It was determined that implementation of the Project would result in no impact or less than significant environmental impacts with or without mitigation related to the resource topics listed below in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Analysis supporting the conclusions for these resource topics is included in Appendix A as part of the Initial Study and NOP. It should be noted that the Initial Study evaluated 13 Housing Opportunity Sites and included 1,833 dwelling units, which exceeds this EIR’s assumptions of 1,773 dwelling units (eight Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) by 60 dwelling units. As detailed in Section 2.0, the Project evaluated for the purposes of CEQA within this EIR only includes the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program. This EIR evaluated the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) and programmatically discussed the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as the 167 proposed units are included within the City’s RHNA totals. As the Main Street Program and the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 13 and 10, respectively, within the Initial Study, all components of the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) and the residential portion of the ORCC were considered within the Initial Study and are therefore considered in the analysis included below. As such, reference to “the Housing Opportunity Sites” herein includes the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. The following resources are not discussed at further length in this Draft EIR. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-2 6.1 AESTHETICS 6.1.1 Scenic Vistas The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources; nor are there any specific policies related to the preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including building heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. 6.1.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway There are no state designated or eligible scenic highways located near the Project site nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state designated scenic highway is SR 91, from its intersection with SR 55 to the northeast for approximately 4 miles along the Santa Ana River, and it is the only state designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site is located more than 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91 and therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there would be no impact. 6.1.3 Light and Glare Implementation of the Project would occur primarily in areas designated for redevelopment of currently underutilized parcels in the City. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within illuminated areas. While the increased density associated with Project implementation would introduce new sources of light and glare in their immediate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply with City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and light standard heights. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare and impacts would be less than significant. 6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 6.2.1 Prime Farmland None of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites have been identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to cause impacts to Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert farmland to m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-3 non-agricultural uses. As such, the Initial Study identified that implementation of the Project would have no impact. 6.2.2 Agricultural Zoning The Project does not have the potential to conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. According to the City’s Zoning Map Index and Orange County’s Public Works Land Records Map, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are under existing zoning designations that allow agricultural uses onsite and none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Williamson contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. 6.2.3 Forest Land and Timberland Zoning There are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact. 6.2.4 Loss or Conversion of Forest Land The parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and there are no forest lands located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact. 6.2.5 Change to Existing Environment Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderate-income residential uses in areas throughout the City. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use nor were any of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified to include important farmland. The Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and there would be no impact. 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.3.1 Local Policies or Ordinances Future developments on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. However, all resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by this regulation and ensure the Project does not lead to removal of designated landmark trees. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-4 6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.4.1 Burial Sites Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during moving activities. Future developments under the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. Although construction activities associated with future developments could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Information related to Tribal outreach is included in Section 3.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR. 6.5 ENERGY 6.5.1 Energy Plan The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update and future individual development projects resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Code. Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with and implement goals and policies identified in the Housing Element Update that support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. With implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-5 6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 6.6.1 Seismic Hazard The City and Project site are located in the seismically active Southern California region. The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fault. All of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south of this zone and not within it. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and development plans, would be required. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have less than a significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. While there is no way to avoid ground shaking and earthquake hazards, compliance with CBC requirements, including specific provisions for seismic design, would mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes on new future construction. The Project would require that future developments be designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking. Geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as well as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 in the Initial Study) are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, and 8 in the Initial Study) do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone. Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements that existed at the time of development. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies and would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure. The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level. Seal Beach is relatively flat with an average elevation of 15 feet above sea level and the highest point reaching approximately 70 feet above sea level, as such, there are no hills (typically considered to be over 100 feet above the average elevation) or mountains adjacent to them, though the area backing up to Housing Opportunity Site 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 8 in the Initial Study) is often referred to as a “hill,” by Seal Beach residents. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork; however, mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant. Additionally, the Project would m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-6 be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.6.2 Erosion Onsite soils during Project implementation and construction can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a SWPPP, which specifies BMPs for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP would be required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading, limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future developments resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize potential soil erosion impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.6.3 Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil The General Plan identifies that the City’s Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City’s Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports would be required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.6.4 Expansive Soil Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report and geotechnical evaluations as required by Municipal Code Chapter 9.50.020. Recommendations in the geotechnical reports would be required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future developments resulting from Project implementations. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with CBC guidelines and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With implementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-7 6.6.5 Septic Tanks The General Plan identifies the City as completely “built out” and necessary infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no impact. 6.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.7.1 Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During the construction phase, limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used, including standard construction materials such as concrete, paints, solvents, and heavy construction equipment which would contain diesel fuels and oils. The use of hazardous materials during construction would be limited and temporary. Project construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies relating to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, impacts during construction would be less than significant. The use of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be limited to those commonly found at facilities such as solvents, cleaners, paints; chlorine and other chemicals for pool maintenance; and pesticides for landscape maintenance activities. These common household hazardous materials would be used in limited quantities and would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project operation would be less than significant. 6.7.2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials During construction activities, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. Future Project implementation would establish additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. Common materials associated with residential uses include small quantity hazardous material, such as cleaners and pesticides. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.7.3 Emission of Hazardous Materials near a School With the exception of two Housing Opportunity Site, all other Housing Opportunity Sites are located more than one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 8 in the Initial Study, respectively) is located within one-quarter mile of m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-8 McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. As stated under 6.7.1 above, construction activities required for future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste, and emissions to minimize the potential for hazardous emissions to occur. Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.7.4 Hazardous Materials Sites The Housing Opportunity Sites are not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List). Several hazardous sites are identified within the City and individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an ESA by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, review of GeoTracker on March 14, 2025 demonstrates that Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) was identified as an open site assessment in April 2024. Files available for review on GeoTracker identity the site as a Cleanup Program Site under Orange County Lead Oversight Program and the site’s 2013 Phase I ESA notes oil use and storage to formerly occur onsite, along with aboveground storage tanks and piping. Compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation would be required prior to issuance of building permits. Furthermore, any future developments resulting from any of the Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, or the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If the Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation of a Phase II ESA, which would consist of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement the recommendations included in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building permits. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at the local, state, and federal levels would be required. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future developments resulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-9 laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of ESAs, impacts would be less than significant. 6.7.5 Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. All future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. 6.7.6 Wildland Fires The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City’s EOP and LHMP. Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 6.8.1 Water Quality Standards With the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements. Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-10 system. The City’s General Plan Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of NPDES programs. Additionally, Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. Any future developments associated with Project implementation that would disturb one acre or more of land would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and all relevant NPDES requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), in developed areas; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.8.2 Erosion or Siltation Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), the Housing Opportunity Sites identified under the Project are already m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-11 developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments and therefore, future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would be anticipated to utilize the existing drainage facilities in the City consistent with the existing sites. Project implementation would require construction activities that could result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. The Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Future development projects would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, including standard erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the risk of polluted runoff resulting from increased erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include an erosion control plan that identifies measures, such as diverting runoff from disturbed areas and treatment measures to trap sediment, to ensure there is no polluted runoff. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING 6.9.1 Established Community The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low- and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would occur within areas that are already developed and would not occur within any existing residential communities that could be divided. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites occur in a variety of locations throughout the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in division of established communities, and this impact would be less than significant. 6.10 MINERAL RESOURCES 6.10.1 Loss of Resource The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area of locally important mineral resources. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-12 present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas and the Housing Opportunity Sites do not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources and there would be no impact. 6.10.2 Resource Recovery Site The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas, which include Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach NWR. Housing Opportunity Site 3 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 4 in the Initial Study) is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch, and is located approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known or designated mineral resources. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not have potential impacts associated with the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site and there would be no impact. 6.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 6.11.1 Displace Existing People or Housing The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by evaluating sites across the City that have the potential to develop new residential units. The purpose of the environmental review is to address the potential impacts resulting from buildout. However, the Project itself does not directly result in the development of any residential units. As such certification of the Project would not lead to the construction of new residential units. Instead certification of the Project allows for changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the sites. Therefore, since the Project does not directly result in any new construction or development implementation would not require relocation of existing developments. However, if development or redevelopment at the Housing Opportunity Sites is proposed on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur. The Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future developments resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-13 6.12 PUBLIC SERVICES 6.12.1 Schools As stated in the Housing Element Update, Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Currently, a majority of the City’s K-12 student population need to travel outside the City to attend school, and Los Alamitos Unified School District is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos Unified School District schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact mitigation fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would also be required to comply with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. Therefore, with the payment of required fees and incorporation of General Plan policies, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.12.2 Other Facilities Other public facilities within the City include two County libraries. . Project implementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand on public facilities. The Leisure World Library, a privately funded and maintained library, is located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is available to residents and visitors to Leisure World. The Leisure World Library is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result of future Project implementation. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the General Plan that states that consistency with the County’s Growth Management Plan would ensure adequate library services are provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 6.13.1 Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines, as well as the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual, in addition to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-14 6.13.2 Emergency Access Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City which could result in inadequate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project are not designed to City standards and requirements. As such, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features, which would be made in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. 6.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 6.14.1 Solid Waste According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2022 the City’s residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually. According to the DOF, as of January 2024, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.8 persons per household. Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide a maximum of 1,833 additional dwelling units to the City, the 1,833 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,354 people. Using the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21,130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of 28,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually. Consistent with SB 1383, all dwelling units or complexes would be required to recycle food scraps and yard waste into green products with the goal of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. The additional dwelling units would be constructed over time resulting in a small increase year over year to existing solid waste generation and would be expected to generate less solid waste due to SB 1383 Therefore the increase in solid waste from the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-15 6.14.2 Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations The Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would comply with the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation are constructed and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant. 6.15 WILDFIRE 6.15.1 Emergency Response Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. 6.15.2 Exacerbate Wildfire Risk The Project proposes rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income housing, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. None of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA would minimize impacts resulting from Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development would not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding. 6.15.3 Associated Infrastructure Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for new development and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development. Associated infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with City and County requirements and regulations and would be required to adhere to the measures in the individual requirements for new infrastructure to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Effects Not Found to be Significant 6-16 wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact. 6.15.4 Expose People or Structures With the implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impacts from wildfires would occur. m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report List of Preparers 7-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Report Preparers Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Principal-in-Charge .............................................................................................................. Trevor Macenski Project Manager/ Principal Planner ....................................................................................... Anna Radonich Environmental Planner ............................................................................................................ Kaela Johnson Environmental Planner ......................................................................................................... Jennifer Webster Air Quality Specialist ................................................................................................................... Kaitlyn Heck Air Quality and Climate Change Consultant ............................................................................... Briette Shea Senior Associate, Acoustics .................................................................................................. Tracie Ferguson Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering .......................................................... Daryl Zerfass Principal Archaeologist ....................................................................................................... E. Timothy Jones Senior Architectural Historian ......................................................................................Emily Rinaldi-Williams Archaeologist .............................................................................................................................. Susan Davis Principal Paleontologist ................................................................................................................. Alyssa Bell Paleontologist ............................................................................................................................ Ceara Purcell Paleontologist ........................................................................................................................... Matthew Cline Principal Biologist/Ecosystems Technical Resource Group Leader ......................................... Jaren Varonin Senior Biologist ............................................................................................................................ Logan Elms Project Biologist .......................................................................................................................... Hannah Hart Associate Biologist ................................................................................................................ Allison Loveless Senior Technical Lead – Water .............................................................................................. Carrie Poytress Senior Civil Engineer ............................................................................................................. Jonny Zukowski IJ Appendix A Notice of Preparation/ Initial Study and Written Comments Notice of Preparation And Scoping Meeting for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Environmental Impact Report DATE: November 16, 2023 TO: Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties FROM: City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 PROJECT TITLE/SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project – Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Seal Beach NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD: November 16, 2023 – December 15, 2023 SCOPING MEETING: December 6, 2023 The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to notify potential Responsible Agencies (Agencies) that the Lead Agency, the City of Seal Beach (City), will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) and to solicit comments and suggestions regarding (1) the scope and content of the EIR and (2) the environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15082). This NOP also provides notice to interested parties, organizations, and individuals of the preparation of the EIR and requests comments on the scope and contents of the environmental document. Project Location: The Project site is currently comprised of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City totaling approximately 278 acres. The City located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles. PROJECT OVERVIEW In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584, projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029. The Housing Element is one of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. Background: An Initial Study was prepared for the City to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the City’s recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7, 2022, but updated on August 24, 2023 in response to HCD comments, and identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City’s strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for lower-income households and for special-needs populations (i.e., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to have the Housing Element Update certified and obtain compliance, as the Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update would bring the element into compliance with state legislation and the current SCAG RHNA. The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law: • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends; • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals; • A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meet the City’s housing needs; and • A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, including goals policies and programs. The Housing Element Update identifies the following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: • Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income-levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents; • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households; • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing; • Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and • Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): In March 2021, SCAG adopted its 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cycle, SCAG received a need of 1,341,827 new housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new housing units. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for “No Net Loss” provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, which requires that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. Project Description: The Project analyzes potential impacts resulting from implementation of the City's Housing Element Update and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with a realistic potential for residential development and potential ADUs, as summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new housing units at low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as 85 units currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement. Because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations, proposed rezone sites have been identified, as shown in Table 2, below. Table 2: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 4 Accurate Storage 095-791-18 Vehicle and boat storage 4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD 5 The Shops at Rossmoor 086-492-51 Retail, office, fast food, grocery and pharmacy 27 10 GC MC/RHD 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130-861- 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 18, -19, - Existing commercial center with bank, 26 5 GC MC/RHD Site No. Address/ APN General Plan/ Zoning Appr ox. Acres Existing Onsite Use(s) Assume d Density (Dwellin g Units per Acre) Lower- Income Dwellin g Units Moderat e- Income Dwelling Units Above Moderat e- Income Dwelling Units Total Units 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy (APN 199- 061-01) Limited Commer -cial/ RMD-18 0.25 Older convenie nce store; zoning allows mixed- use 20 -- 5 -- 5 2 Leisure World (APN 095- 691-04) Resident ial High Density – Planned Commun ity 5.5 RV Storage 30 74 38 38 150 3 Accessory Dwelling Units All Resident ial and Mixed- Use Zones N/A Residenti al and Mixed- Use Zones N/A 36 14 -- 50 TOTAL 110 57 38 205 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Redline August 24, 2023 Version. Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 20, -21, - 22, -23, - 24, -25, - 26, -27 surface parking, restaurants, department stores, retail, services, Ralph’s supermarket, and CVS Pharmacy 7 Seal Beach Plaza 095-641- 44, -49, - 55, -56, -57 Existing commercial center with Chase Bank, retail, market, drive through restaurant, and medical and professional offices 7 2.5 CS-SC MC/RHD 8 Seal Beach Center 043-260- 02, -05 Existing commercial center with CVS Pharmacy, retail, services, restaurant, and market 9 4 SC MC/RHD 9 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil separation facility with abandoned handball court 4.3 4.3 OE RHD-33 10 Old Ranch Country Club **** 130-012-55 Portion of existing golf course 155 4 RG SP 11 Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd. ** 043-150-23 Portion of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 22 4 M N/A 12 Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) ** -- Water and Equipment Storage 2.75 2 M N/A 13 Main Street *** 043-112- 21, -22, - 23, -28, - 29, -34, - 35, -36, - 41; Existing Main Street Specific Plan commercial district, including retail, services, 15 N/A MSSP MSSP Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 043-113- 04, -08, 14, -15, -36, - 37, -42, - 46, -48, 51; 199-053- 18, -19, - 20, -21, - 22, -23, - 24, -25, - 26, -28, - 29, -30, - 31; 199-043- 10; -11, - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 18, -19, - 20; 199-033- 02; 199-034- 01, -02, 03, -04, -05, - 06, -07, - 08, -09, - 10, -11, - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 36; 199-044- 19, -20, - 21, -22, - 23, -24, - 25, -26, - 27, -28, - 29, -30, - 31, -32, - 33, -34 offices, parking areas, restaurants and bars, theater, medical offices, plant nursery and other shops and retailers Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023. Notes:* The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD). The new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. ** Zoning Not Applicable *** Specific Plan Amendment Required **** Land Use Change / Rezoning Required GC = Commercial General OSG = Open Space Golf OE = Oil Extraction RG = Recreation Golf CS = Commercial Service SC = Service Commercial MC/RHD = Mixed Commercial/Residential High Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning M = Military MSSP = Main Street Specific Plan Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, one would be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, “Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density” (MC/RHD), which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. Redevelopment of underutilized sites and ADUs could accommodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 additional housing units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. As these Housing Opportunity Sites are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densification and intensification of low- and moderate-income residential uses would result. The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore, preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in order to consider the potential environmental impacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning designation resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. Required Approvals The Housing Element is a component of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Additionally, the HCD will review the Housing Element for compliance with applicable statutory provisions. A focused EIR will provide the necessary environmental determination required by CEQA. The focused EIR would be adopted by Resolution of the City Council. Implementation of the Project would require the following approvals: • Certification of the CEQA document; • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Adoption of the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration (if applicable); • Change of Zone/Specific Plan Amendment; and • Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIR The City of Seal Beach, the lead agency for the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and focused EIR, is subject to environmental review under CEQA. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project has determined that the proposed applications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA, the discussion of potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the detail of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (Public Resource Codes (PRC) Section 21100, CCR Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effect on the environment be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions that exist within the affected area, as defined in PRC Section 21060.5 (statutory definition of “environment”). Environmental effects identified in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project that are dismissed as less than significant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR, unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study (CCR Section 15143). Environmental issue areas scoped out of the focused EIR will include an explanation of why these issues would not result in significant environmental effects and are not required to be evaluated further. The following environmental topics will be evaluated in the EIR: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance The EIR will address the short-term and long-term effects of the Project on the environment. It will also evaluate the potential for the Project to cause direct and indirect growth-inducing impacts, as well as cumulative impacts. Alternatives to the proposed Project will be evaluated that may reduce impacts that are determined to be significant in the EIR. Mitigation may be proposed for those impacts that are determined to be significant. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) will also be developed as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental determination in this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is subject to a 30-day public review period per Public Resources Section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. Public agencies, interested organizations, and individuals have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Project, to identify those environmental issues, potentially affected by the Project which should be addressed further by the City in the EIR. Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources Code, a scoping meeting will be held for the general public and responsible and trustee public agencies, as indicated below. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to learn about the Project, review the anticipated scope of the EIR, and assist the City in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. Scoping Meeting Date December 6, 2023 Scoping Meeting Time 6:00 PM Scoping Meeting Location City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Public Review and Comment Period: A 30-day public review period for comments on the scope of the EIR starts on Thursday November 16, 2023, and ends on Friday December 15, 2023 at 5:00 P.M. Please send your comment, with your name and address, to: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 or via e-mail to: ASmittle@sealbeachca.gov. A copy of the Initial Study/NOP describing the Project and potential environmental effects is available at the following locations: • Orange County Public Library, Seal Beach Branch, 707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Orange County Public Library, Los Alamitos-Rossmoor Branch, 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach, CA 90740 • The City’s website: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study November 16, 2023 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1340 Treat Blvd, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 ~ Stantec CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents i Table of Contents ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT TITLE ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ..................................................................... 1-1 1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ............................................................. 1-1 1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS ........................................................ 1-1 1.5 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES .................................................................................... 1-2 1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY .................................................................. 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation ....................................2-2 2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Existing Site Conditions ...............................................................................2-4 2.3.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories .........................................................2-5 2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions ........................................................2-9 2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential .................. 2-17 2.4 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 2-18 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS .................................................................................... 2-18 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............. 3-1 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................. 3-1 Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ..............................................3-2 Environmental Assessment Methodology .....................................................................3-2 3.1 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................3-4 3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ...................................................................3-4 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ..................................................... 3-7 3.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................3-7 3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ...................................................................3-8 3.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 3-10 3.3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-10 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-12 3.4.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-12 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-13 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3-16 3.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-16 3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-17 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents ii 3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3-20 3.6.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-20 3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-20 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................ 3-22 3.7.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-22 3.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-23 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES ............................................................................................ 3-29 3.8.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-29 3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-30 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................. 3-31 3.9.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-31 3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-33 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................... 3-37 3.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-37 3.10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-38 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................... 3-44 3.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-44 3.11.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-44 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 3-46 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-46 3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-46 3.13 NOISE ....................................................................................................................... 3-47 3.13.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-47 3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-48 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................. 3-50 3.14.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-50 3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-51 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................. 3-53 3.15.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-53 3.15.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-54 3.16 RECREATION .......................................................................................................... 3-57 3.16.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-57 3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-57 3.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 3-59 3.17.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-59 3.17.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-61 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 3-63 3.18.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-63 3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-63 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 3-65 3.19.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-65 3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-67 3.20 WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................. 3-70 3.20.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-70 3.20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-72 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................... 3-74 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents iii 3.21.1 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-74 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 4-1 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 5-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................ 2-4 Table 2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) ............................................. 2-6 Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) .................................................................. 2-7 Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential ................................ 2-17 Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements ..................................... 2-18 Table 6: City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................... 3-47 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Regional Map ......................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2 – City of Seal Beach Map .......................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3 – Housing Opportunity Sites Map .............................................................................. 1-6 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms / Abbreviations iv Acronyms / Abbreviations AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard AB Assembly Bill ADU accessory dwelling unit AF acre-feet amsl above mean sea level APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP best management practices Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCC California Coastal Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane City City of Seal Beach CNEL community noise equivalent level County Orange County CO2 carbon dioxide DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB decibel DOC California Department of Conservation DOF Department of Finance DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA environmental site assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FRA Federal Responsibility Area General Plan City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan GHG greenhouse gas II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms / Abbreviations v GWh gigawatt-hours GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC hydrofluorocarbons Housing Element Update 2021-2029 Housing Element Update ISMND Initial Study Mitigation Negative Declaration I/L ratio ratio of improvement value to land value LCP Local Coastal Program LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Los Al USD Los Alamitos Unified School District MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOP Notice of Preparation NOx oxides of nitrogen NWR National Wildlife Refuge N2O nitrous oxide OC San Orange County Sanitation District OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model OCWD Orange County Water District OE Oil Extraction OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research O3 ozone PFC perfluorocarbons PM2.5 fine inhalable particulate matter PM10 coarse inhalable particulate matter PRC Public Resources Code Project; proposed Project City of Seal Beach General Plan Zoning Code Updates Project RHD-20 residential high density RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RPS Renewables Portfolio Standards SB Senate Bill II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms / Abbreviations vi SBPD Seal Beach Police Department SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT vehicle miles traveled II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Introduction 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT TITLE City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project, proposed Project) 1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431-2527 x1313 1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 1.5 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is currently comprised of 13 identified sites 1 dispersed throughout the City of Seal Beach, California (City; Seal Beach) and totaling approximately 278 acres. The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, as shown in Figure 1. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, as shown in Figure 2. 1 The Housing Element proposes an increase in accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a “site” (Opportunity Site 3) in order to recognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore, the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Introduction 1-2 1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES As the existing land uses are comprised of a variety of land uses across the city, the surrounding land uses are similarly varied in character. They consist of residential development, vacant land, commercial and retail uses, parking lots, mobile home parks, institutional and industrial uses, and military uses as well as other urban and suburban land uses throughout the City. 1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584, projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029. The Housing Element is one of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. In addition to including goals, policies, and implementation programs regarding housing issues, housing elements must include an inventory or list of housing sites at sufficient densities to accommodate a specific number of units at various levels of affordability assigned to the City by SCAG. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City, as shown on Figure 3, that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. In Seal Beach, the Housing Opportunity Sites uniquely include two sites located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the City has no zoning authority, but housing development would present a change of use. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, “Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density” (MC/RHD), which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. As these Housing Opportunity Sites are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densification and intensification of low- and moderate-income residential uses would result. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Introduction 1-3 1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document intended to inform the lead agency, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate potential environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially significant adverse impacts. This document is intended to aid the City in determining the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document needed to support agency discretionary approvals, permits, and consultations. The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore, preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in order to consider the potential environmental impacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning designation resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Housing Element Update includes an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites located throughout the City, some of which are intended to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation of new housing units that would also be suitable for low- and moderate-income units. II SealBeach Z:\seal_beach\fig_1_regional_location.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Initial Study Seal Beach, CA Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14 Review by AR on 2023-11-14 Regional Location Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Notes1.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet2.Data Sources:3.Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and Figure No. Title Project Location Client/Project Legend City of Seal Beach Boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:425,000 ($$¯0 3 6 Miles City of Seal Beach Be've rl y Hi ll s Redondo Be ach . .>, C • ~ Inglewood .,, PALOS VERDE HILLS 01413 ft Oce □n o Long Bea ch Pacific Ocean W hitti er Norwa lk l ::7 Bel1l flower \ ce~ ' =--,- Hunt ington ~ Be ac h ~ £ F oun tain Val ley l't I • ., Cl aremont New'port Beach Lngtn., Benc h () Stantec L a Da n Z:\seal_beach\fig_2_seal_beach_map.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON2 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Initial Study Seal Beach, CA Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14 Review by AR on 2023-11-14 City of Seal Beach Map Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Notes1.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet2.Data Sources:3.Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and Figure No. Title Project Location Client/Project Legend City of Seal Beach boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:50,000 ($$¯0 0.25 0.5 Miles City of Seal Beach ,!! SI z 111 SI 'ta rd '; A iii 1, <;~ ~i I 8 ,vh::iley o,.,to,, :, S' r(!'<',; VA long Beac h Healthcal8 System E Stearns s, Flo$ SJ ntos Or E '1J\..·u1ta St Callfor n1::i State Unwer sity Long Beach 83M E Atherton SI -0 0: t h•S t C> A l 1m1 tos Ba)' S1n Pedro Bay :a -g ;;; z Pac i fic Ocean s a .... n N b :<>al A n g so V 0 A n a l1e im n g e c h 0 0 S n t A n M 0 Oce 0 Se"' 8-ach Naton.:Jj Wlkthfe Rtf1.1ge Arohe 1m Bat Saratoga Ave Const itutio n Ave Old Ranch CountryCklb CA.22,w Yo rk town Ave J01nt Forces Tiain1ng Cen\&r B1rchi.YOod Ave Al mord Ave WeSl lil lllSlcr Blvd N:1Val Weapons Staton ·al Beach t !!I Ric hmond ... ~ 'It Ounro nrP(' ~ Bo,. Che ,,.,. Loyola Ave 'I u :;; " ~ f "' .~ ~ " Skyla Argosy Ave ;;; E E e C) s ~ E ,! u Pearce Dr ': () Stantec 0 ID !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. 1 4 5 6 7 89 10 13 11 12 2 Z:\seal_beach\fig_3_housing_sites_v2.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON3 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Initial Study Seal Beach, CA Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14 Review by AR on 2023-11-14 Housing Opportunity Sites Map Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Notes1.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet2.Data Sources:3.Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and Figure No. Title Project Location Client/Project Legend !.Housing Opportunity Site City of Seal Beach boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:60,000 ($$¯0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 2. Leisure World 3. Accessory Dwelling Units* 4. Accurate Storage 5. The Shops at Rossmoor 6. Old Ranch Town Center 7. Seal Beach Plaza 8. Seal Beach Center 9. 99 Marina Drive 10. Old Ranch Country Club 11. Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd. 12. Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) 13. Main Street Housing Opportunity Sites * Sites for Accessory Dwelling Units are not depicted on the map. The sites would be dispersed and located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. City of Seal Beach o St rd A ng n g Calrfo m1a S t.::ite Unr•,ers 1ty· Lo ng Be c h V A Lo ng Be a c h Hea lthc re S Im S 8...-n N b :<>a l V 0 A n a l1e im 0 S n t A n M 0 Oce 0 ... 2 II) 0 u.. R oss m oo r nc h r '"l untf) C lub Jo int Fo rces Training Ce nte r CA -22 W--====::....-.J,, Vv'estn111 'l e r B lvd Naval W a p:,n SL::lt n Se al Be c h c l1 Na • Golf Co urse I kyl11 Rd Bo lsa I I I C u5 r:; --, () Stantec CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach’s Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The Housing Element Update identifies an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the MSSP. The City’s rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. This new zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. 2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE This Initial Study is prepared for the City to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the City’s recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7, 2022, and updated on August 24, 2023 in response to HCD comments. It identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City’s strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for lower-income households and for special-needs populations (i.e., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to certify the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update would bring the element into compliance with state legislation and the City’s current RHNA allocation. In March 2021, SCAG adopted its 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cycle, SCAG received a need of 1,341,827 new housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new housing units. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-2 The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law (City of Seal Beach 2022): • An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends; • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals; • A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meet the City’s housing needs; and • A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, including goals policies and programs. The Housing Element Update identifies the following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: • Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income-levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents; • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households; • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing; • Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and • Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation to account for “No Net Loss” provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, which requires that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. Based upon HCD’s buffer policy, Seal Beach must plan for a minimum of 1,430 new housing units. In its current iteration, the August 2023 Housing Element plans for 1,833 new housing units to be conservative in its approach to the RHNA and anticipating additional modifications may be required by HCD. 2.2.1 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation Program 1B of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. As described, in order to implement housing development at some of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income-levels, the City must establish a new II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-3 zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre to better facilitate development of housing affordable to lower income levels in accordance with HCD policy. Other changes to zoning designations include implementation of a proposed Specific Plan which includes proposed housing and for which an independent Environmental Impact Report is being prepared; revisions to the existing MSSP to allow for second-story residential use; and rezoning a former oil extraction property to residential use, The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on eight of the Housing Opportunity Sites to align with the densities identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential list (Table 4, below). In addition, the City has a unique circumstance with the two sites located on Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the Housing Element proposes a change in use, but the City has no zoning authority, therefore these sites will not be rezoned through the City’s Zoning Code but growth is nonetheless planned for in the Housing Element. Housing Element Update Program 1B The proposed new zoning designation of MC/RHD will consider how to accommodate State requirements and policies to allow for: a minimum residential density of 40 units per acre and maximum residential density of 46 units per acre on larger, developed sites large enough size to permit: at least 16 units; exclusively residential uses; at least 50 percent of the building floor area of a mixed-use development to be dedicated to residential uses; and housing by-right with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households. The definitions of “persons and families of low- and moderate-income,” “lower- income households,” and “very low-income households” as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50150 shall apply. The City shall engage with affected property owners, the Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the zoning process to ensure the development standards can result in the development of the maximum number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. 2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 housing unit growth needs among the 197 jurisdictions in the region, including cities and counties, through the adopted its 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City’s sites inventory must accommodate for in its Housing Element Update, through its General Plan and Zoning. The City’s RHNA allocation is 1,243 new housing units, which is distributed among four income categories, consisting of 258 very low-, 201 low-, 239 moderate-, and 545 above moderate-income units (SCAG 2021). II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-4 2.3.1 Existing Site Conditions The City has identified an inventory of sites across all areas of the city to implement programs to meet its RHNA. The City’s current base zoning, including the General Plan land use designation implemented by zoning designation, are provided in Table 1, below. Table 1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Base Residential Zoning Districts Residential Low Density – 9a RLD-9 Residential Low Density Residential Low Density – 15a RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density – 18b RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residential High Density – 20c RHD-20 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 33c RHD-33 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 46c RHD-46 Residential High Density Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Densityd L-C/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office Service Commercial CS/SC Service Commercial General Commercial GC General Commercial Light Manufacturing LM Light Manufacturing Oil Extraction OE Oil Extraction Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS Community Facility and School Recreation/Golf RG Open Space – Golf Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts Military M Military Beach BEA Beach Open Space Natural OS-N Open Space Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR Park Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations Residential Conservation Overlay RC-O All Planned Unit Development Overlay PUD/PD All Commercial/Park C/P All Coastal Zone CZ All Specific Plan Regulation SPR All Source: City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11.1.05.030, 2021. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-5 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Notes: a Typical single-unit, and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per net acre respectively. b Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. c Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. d Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. 2.3.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories An important component of the City’s Housing Element Update is the identification of sites for future housing development, including an evaluation of the adequacy of those sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs. Seal Beach is nearly built-out with almost no vacant developable land remaining. Therefore, the site inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites. The inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the city. Potential underutilized sites and ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods, thereby expanding affordable housing choices. The Housing Opportunity Sites are not concentrated in low-resource areas. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Underutilized Sites The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development and potential ADUs, as summarized in Table 2. The Housing Element proposes an increase in ADUs that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a “site” (Opportunity Site 3) in order to recognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore, the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites. The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new housing units at low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement. Because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations, proposed rezone sites have been identified, as shown in Table 2, below. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-6 Table 2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) Proposed Rezone Sites To accommodate the balance of the RHNA allocation and provide the required unit buffer, the City conducted an evaluation of potential properties where land use regulations could be amended to create additional opportunities for housing or mixed-use development, and 10 sites have been identified for further evaluation to determine the most appropriate parcels to be rezoned. Due to the lack of vacant and underutilized sites in the city, the sites were identified and analyzed in light of the development standards for their proposed zoning designation. Initially, all parcels in the city were evaluated through a process of elimination based on criteria set by HCD. Where housing units could not be located at sites under present zoning, the City examined nonresidential areas where zoning amendments could facilitate residential development. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. With the exception of the City-owned parcel on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station which was an addition to the draft Housing Element following the withdrawal of a site owned by the County of Orange, the sites listed in Table 3 were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Site No. Address/APN General Plan/ Zoning Appro x. Acres Existing Onsite Use(s) Assum ed Density (Dwelli ng Units per Acre) Lower- Incom e Dwelli ng Units Moderat e- Income Dwellin g Units Above Modera te- Income Dwellin g Units Total Units 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy (APN 199-061- 01) Limited Commer- cial/ RMD-18 0.25 Older convenienc e store; zoning allows mixed-use 20 -- 5 -- 5 2 Leisure World (APN 095-691- 04) Residential High Density – Planned Community 5.5 RV Storage 30 74 38 38 150 3 Accessory Dwelling Units All Residential and Mixed- Use Zones N/A Residential and Mixed- Use Zones N/A 36 14 -- 50 TOTAL 110 57 38 205 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Redline August 24, 2023 (City of Seal Beach 2023a). II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-7 The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the site inventory and to estimate the number of additional units that are likely to be developed. Bearing in mind that most of the developable land within the City consists of established residential uses, most of these areas were eliminated from consideration, as land assembly in a single- family neighborhood was considered infeasible. To ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility was determined by a number of different variables, including the improvement-to-land value ratio (I/L ratio), existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses. As the I/L ratio serves as an indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment, according to the Housing Element Update, a I/L ratio or less than 1.0 for commercial and multi-family residential properties indicates that the parcels are underutilized, with a higher potential for residential infill redevelopment. Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 4 Accurate Storage 095-791-18 Vehicle and boat storage 4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD 5 The Shops at Rossmoor 086-492-51 Retail, office, fast food, grocery and pharmacy 27 10 GC MC/RHD 6 Old Ranch Town Center 130-861- 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 18, -19, - 20, -21, - 22, -23, - 24, -25, - 26, -27 Existing commercial center with bank, surface parking, restaurants, department stores, retail, services, Ralph’s supermarket, and CVS Pharmacy 26 5 GC MC/RHD 7 Seal Beach Plaza 095-641- 44, -49, - 55, -56, -57 Existing commercial center with Chase Bank, retail, market, drive through restaurant, and medical and professional offices 7 2.5 CS-SC MC/RHD II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-8 Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 8 Seal Beach Center 043-260- 02, -05 Existing commercial center with CVS Pharmacy, retail, services, restaurant, and market 9 4 SC MC/RHD 9 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil separation facility with abandoned handball court 4.3 4.3 OE RHD-33 10 Old Ranch Country Club **** 130-012-55 Portion of existing golf course 155 4 RG SP 11 Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd. ** 043-150-23 Portion of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 22 4 M N/A 12 Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) ** -- Water and Equipment Storage 2.75 2 M N/A 13 Main Street *** 043-112- 21, -22, - 23, -28, - 29, -34, - 35, -36, - 41; 043-113- 04, -08, 14, -15, -36, - 37, -42, - 46, -48, 51; 199-053- 18, -19, - 20, -21, - 22, -23, - 24, -25, - 26, -28, - 29, -30, - 31; 199-043- 10; -11, - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - Existing Main Street Specific Plan commercial district, including retail, services, offices, parking areas, restaurants and bars, theater, medical offices, plant nursery and other shops and retailers 15 N/A MSSP MSSP II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-9 Site No. Site Name Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Onsite Use(s) Approximate Acres Estimated Developable Acres Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 16, -17, - 18, -19, - 20; 199-033- 02; 199-034- 01, -02, 03, -04, -05, - 06, -07, - 08, -09, - 10, -11, - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 36; 199-044- 19, -20, - 21, -22, - 23, -24, - 25, -26, - 27, -28, - 29, -30, - 31, -32, - 33, -34 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023. Notes:* The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD). The new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. ** Zoning Not Applicable *** Specific Plan Amendment Required **** Land Use Change / Rezoning Required GC = Commercial General OSG = Open Space Golf OE = Oil Extraction RG = Recreation Golf CS = Commercial Service SC = Service Commercial MC/RHD = Mixed Commercial/Residential High M = Military MSSP = Main Street Specific Plan 2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, with an explanation of the methodology for the sites that are currently developed with various uses. With respect to existing utility infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, drainage systems, and dry utilities, there are no known limitations that would preclude the potential development and increased intensification of uses II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-10 at each of the Housing Opportunity Sites. A description of the Housing Opportunity Sites is provided below, as taken from the August 24, 2023 Housing Element Update (City of Seal Beach 2023a). Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning) Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; Pacific Coast Highway), at the eastern corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west are single family residential uses. Size: 0.25 acre Current Use: retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop. Current Zoning: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. The site is immediately adjacent to housing, with access to goods and services. Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 20 units per acre. The site can reasonably accommodate a ground floor commercial use and parking, with five second-story housing units. Because of its small size, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income site inventory, as shown in Table 4, below. Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning) Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Boulevard, Seal Beach Boulevard, Interstate (I)-405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about 0.33 mile from the southwestern corner of the community. Size: 5.5 acres Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage Current Zoning: Residential High Density–Planned Development (RHD-PD) Reason For Selection: The underutilized site is located in a community that, while not income-restricted, offers a variety of affordable housing options with more than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consisting of low- to moderate-income households. The existing site zoning allows for residential high- density development. Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 150 units can be accommodated at a density of 30 units per acre on approximately 5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage. As 75 percent of the population in Leisure World currently consists of low- to moderate-income households, Table 4, II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-11 below, projects half of the units as lower-income, one quarter at moderate, and the balance at market to be conservative. Site 3 – Accessory Dwelling Units (No Rezoning) Location: Throughout the City, in all residential and mixed-use zones. Current Zoning: All Residential and Mixed-Use Zones Reason For Selection: ADUs represent a significant opportunity for affordable housing, particularly for single persons or small households including the elderly, college students, young adults, and caregivers. Assumed Development Capacity: While interest in ADUs has not historically been high in Seal Beach, recent changes to state law have increased awareness and interest. It has conservatively been assumed that 50 ADUs will be built during this planning cycle. Given that ADUs can introduce low-income units in high resource areas, the City would undertake a number of steps to promote the development of ADUs and consider development of incentives to make ADUs affordable to very low-income households. The City would monitor the effectiveness of its efforts twice a year and make adjustments as necessary. SCAG conducted a regional survey and reported the results in August 2020. SCAG’s research supports an assumption that 73 percent of ADUs could be affordable to lower-income households in the County (even assuming a 50/50 mix of one- and two-person households). Evidence from other jurisdictions throughout California indicates that between 17 and 50 percent of ADUs may be rent-free as the property owners provide housing for their adult children and/or aging parents. The inventory in Table 4, below, implements SCAG’s assumption of 73 percent of units at lower-income, and the balance at moderate- income. Site 4 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required) Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. Size: 4.4 acres Current Use: Self storage facility Current Zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20) Reason For Selection: This site has been selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking onsite, its proximity to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has access to employment and transit routes. Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The I/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-12 due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 83 units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the existing onsite buildings and the resulting limitations to development design, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than two acres, Table 4, below, projects a conservative estimate of only 10 percent at lower-income and 10 percent at moderate-income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre. Site 5 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. Size: 27 acres Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington Current Zoning: General Commercial (CG) Reason For Selection: This site was selected due to an abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s I/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land. High-density residential uses are located adjacent to the property to the west, as such the site’s proposed high-density use would be consistent with surrounding uses. Assumed Development Capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that 10 of the acres could be developed with housing. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 460 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential, Table 4, below, projects 25 percent of units at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market rate. Site 6 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. Size: 26 acres Current Use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket. Current Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Reason For Selection: Similar to the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. The addition of housing to this site is feasible II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-13 as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate with the scale of the existing development. The I/L ratio ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07. Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed 20 percent of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 239 units. Because of the development potential, Table 4, below, projects 25 percent of units at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market. Site 7 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Boulevard. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. Size: 7 acres Current Use: Retail and office/service uses. Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Selection: This site’s I/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.72). Similar to other retail plazas, the site is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers access to goods and services. The site is located adjacent to Leisure World where existing development is high-density. Assumed Development Capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project; however, it is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 2.5 acres of the site. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 115 units. However, due to the smaller developable area, Table 4, below, conservatively estimates 10 percent of units at lower-income, 10 percent at moderate-income, and 80 percent at market rate. Site 8 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street. Size: 9 acres Current Use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces. Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Selection: This site has an I/L ratio less than 1.0 (0.72), indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-14 and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. The property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed-use development as a future possibility to increase site utility. Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 4.5 acres of the site. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up 207 units, without using a density bonus. However, because the site is adjacent to low-density single- family use, and greater setbacks or step-backs may be appropriate in the revised zoning code, a lower development threshold of 120 units and 4 acres of developable area is assumed. While four acres is ample development capacity, because this opportunity site is directly across the street from single-family homes, Table 4, below, conservatively estimates 15 percent of the units at lower-income levels, 15 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market despite being zoned at 46 units per acre. Site 9 – 99 Marina (Rezoning Required) Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection. Size: 4.3 acres Current Use: Vacant. A handball court is located on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court as the court is located adjacent to a public park. Current Zoning: Oil Extraction (OE) Reason For Selection: Oil extraction activities at the site no longer occur and the current property owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. City staff has received inquiries on the property from potential buyers and support of residential development at the site, from the community. Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Assumed Development Capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the California Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production anticipated at the site is 90 units, all of which are conservatively assumed to be above moderate-income. Site 10 – Old Ranch Country Club (Rezoning/Land Use Change Required; Specific Plan Required) Location: The entire facility, approximately 155 acres in size, is located north of Lampson Avenue, and south of the Joint Forces Training Base and Old Ranch Town Center, just east of Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed housing sites are located along the western edge of the property, one near the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, and the other further south, across Lampson Avenue from the Ivy Park assisted living facility. Size: 155 acres II 2-15 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Current Use: Golf course and supporting amenities. Current Zoning: Recreation Golf (RG) Reason For Selection: At this time, the landowner has a development application in process with the City for the development of 116 family units and 51 senior units. Assumed Development Capacity: As this is an active development application, the numbers proposed by the property owner are now the assumed development, for a total of 167 units. All units have been assumed at above moderate-income levels. The existing development application is for a specific plan, which would guide development of the housing as well as a hotel and modifications to the existing clubhouse and golf facilities. An EIR is being prepared for the proposed development. Approval of a specific plan is a discretionary action by the City Council. A new development agreement between the developer and the property owner is expected to be a part of the development application that will ultimately be considered by the City. Site 11 – Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Boulevard (Zoning Not Applicable) Location: Within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, fronting Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. Size: 22 acres Current Use: Military use; the site is mostly vacant except for a concrete training pad and a 960 square foot prefabricated metal building used as a classroom. Current Zoning: Military (M) Reason For Selection: This site was selected in collaboration with the U.S. Navy (Navy), which successfully requested letters of interest to develop this site. The Navy’s vision includes uses that would serve military personnel, including the potential for housing. The Navy has already initiated environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This site is generally undeveloped and is under singular ownership. The site is located in proximity to goods and services, including an elementary school. A mixed-use development, including housing, is generally anticipated, and assumes 150 residential units in a vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use development. These assumptions were arrived at in cooperation with Navy representatives. Because census data shows lower-income levels at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station currently, Table 4, below, assumes one-third of the units at lower-income, one-third at moderate-income, and one-third at above moderate-income. Despite being within the City, this is federal property; therefore, the City has no zoning authority over this area. Site 12 – Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) (Zoning Not Applicable) Location: Within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way. Size: 2.75 acres II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-16 Current Use: Water and equipment storage Current Zoning: Military (M) Reason For Selection: This parcel is owned by the City of Seal Beach. While the water storage facility is in active use and needs to remain in use, the balance of the site has comparably minimal utility. As a part of the Housing Element process, the City looked for opportunities to leverage property it owns. This parcel has capacity for greater utilization. Potential development of the site has been presented to Navy staff. Presently, the Navy is amenable to considering a project that could benefit both the Navy and the City, such as affordable housing for veterans. Assumed Development Capacity: Depending on the exact size and configuration of the parcel, at least 65 units could be accommodated on a parcel of approximately two acres. Presumed to be an affordable housing development, 50 of the units are assumed to be at lower-income levels and 15 of the units at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4, below. Site 13 – Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Amendment Required) Location: The Main Street Specific Plan area covers is the traditional downtown commercial core of Old Town, primarily defined by Main Street. Size: 21 acres Current Use: Mixed-use, including retail, offices, micro-scale manufacturing, and residential. Current Zoning: Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Reason For Selection: The area provides for a pedestrian-oriented mix of offices and retail uses with some residential units, which were built prior to adoption of the MSSP. Because Main Street is already developed as a pedestrian friendly area surrounded by residential neighborhoods, existing uses would not be an impediment to the expansion of residential units in this area. Assumed Development Capacity: Although the area could accommodate a sizable number of residential units if the area is redeveloped, it is recognized that such redevelopment is very unlikely to occur during this planning period. Consolidation of lots under fragmented ownership would be challenging. A two-story height limit has been imposed in this area by voters, further affecting redevelopment opportunities. However, some parcels could accommodate one or more units towards the rear of the lot and/or above an existing single-story retail building. Space exists on some sites to develop units over open parking areas, as well. A physical inventory of the area revealed potential to accommodate 163 units if the City allows a minimum unit size standard of approximately 400 square feet. The proposed MSSP amendment would allow for residential uses on second stories or fronting rear alleys, such that Main Street itself remains a retail environment. At these small sizes, these uses would be ancillary, most akin to accessory dwelling units and, therefore, have income-levels have been categorized the same way, with 73 percent at lower-income levels and the balance at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4, below. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-17 2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential As shown in Table 4, below, redevelopment of underutilized sites and addition of ADUs could result in a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 additional housing units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The residential site development potential is shown in Table 4. Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential Site No. Site Name Potential Density (Dwelling Units per Acre) Lower-Income Dwelling Units Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Above Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Total Units Underutilized Sites 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 20 -- 5 -- 5 2 Leisure World 30 74 38 38 150 3 Accessory Dwelling Units N/A 36 14 -- 50 Total Units from Underutilized Sites -- 110 57 38 205 Rezoned Sites (Unless Military) 4 Accurate Storage 46 6 6 47 59 5 The Shops at Rossmoor 46 115 115 230 460 6 Old Ranch Town Center 46 59 59 121 239 7 Seal Beach Plaza 46 12 12 91 115 8 Seal Beach Center 46 15 15 90 120 9 99 Marina Drive 33 -- -- 90 90 10 Old Ranch Country Club -- -- -- 167 167 11 Naval Weapons Station PCH 30 50 50 50 150 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-18 Site No. Site Name Potential Density (Dwelling Units per Acre) Lower-Income Dwelling Units Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Above Moderate- Income Dwelling Units Total Units & Seal Beach Blvd. 12 Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) 33 50 15 -- 65 13 Main Street N/A 117 46 -- 163 Total Units from Proposed Rezoning -- 424 318 886 1,628 Total Units including Underutilized Sites, ADUs, and Rezone 534 375 924 1,833 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023. Notes: The current MU is only associated with LC/RMD. A new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46. Potential units based on estimated development area. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. In accordance with the “No Net Loss” provisions of SB 166, Housing Opportunity Sites inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update includes sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. 2.4 SCHEDULE Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would generally occur during the same time frame of the Housing Element Update, which is from 2021 through 2029. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Anticipated permits, approvals, and consultations include, but are not limited to, the actions described in Table 5 below. Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements Agency Permits and Other Approvals City of Seal Beach • Certification of CEQA document • Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable) • Change of Zone / Specific Plan Amendment II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2-19 Agency Permits and Other Approvals • Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed Project. According to Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality of the environment. • The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. • The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment. According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to insignificant levels. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed applications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project. This Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) are prepared in conformance with the CEQA of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of the County; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. The City is the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for any project in the City. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-2 Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation This Initial Study and NOP are informational documents intended to inform decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed changes. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The Initial Study and NOP prepared for the Project will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review and comments, to facilitate preparation of the EIR. Environmental Assessment Methodology The environmental factors checked below would potentially be 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 ☒ Greenhouse Gases ☒ Public Services ☐ Agricultural and Forestry Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☒ Recreation ☒ Air Quality ☒ Hydrology and Water Quality ☒ Transportation ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems ☒ Energy Resources ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfires ☒ Geology and Soils ☒ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination Based on this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An □ □ □ IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be add/]/,/ ~ --!f /(L{/~&:3 Signature Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director City of Seal Beach Date 3-3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-4 3.1 AESTHETICS AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 20199: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public Views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, the potential of the project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.1.1 Environmental Setting As described in the City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan (General Plan), visual resources in the City include the Pacific Ocean coastal waterfront, including beaches, the shoreline, wetlands and marshlands. There are approximately two miles of beachfront shoreline in the City, which is considered to be of regional significance for passive and active recreational activities. As the Project implementation would result in future development and more dense residential uses in the vicinity of the coastal waterfront, potential impacts to aesthetics are evaluated below. 3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant Impact Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest. The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources; nor are there any specific policies related preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ ~ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-5 Individual developments that would be developed on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites under the Housing Element Update would be dispersed throughout the City and would be located in areas that are highly urbanized with surrounding existing developments that already limit potential views to scenic resources. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including building heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: No Impact According to the California State Scenic Highway Project, which is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Caltrans 2022), there are no state-designated scenic highways located in the City; nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state-designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 91, between the city limits of Anaheim and SR 55 to the south, and it is the only state-designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site is approximately 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91. Implementation of the Project would not occur within the vicinity of state scenic highways and would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact in this regard. As such this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public Views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, the potential of the project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the identification of parcels located within the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Additionally, implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the creation of a new zoning district that would be applied to five of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and one site identified as a Housing Opportunity Site would be rezoned to an existing zoning district to accommodate housing. As such, future residential development associated with Project implementation would occur within urbanized areas of the City. Although future Project implementation would not include development on previously undeveloped areas that are not surrounded by urbanization, some of the Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for future residential II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-6 development could affect areas that are along the City’s interface with coastal or open space areas. Additionally, future Project implementation could include the development of new infrastructure which may have the have the potential to alter the existing visual character of the area. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Typical current sources of light and glare throughout the City include interior and exterior building lighting, illuminated signage, ballfield lighting, lighting from vehicles along existing roadways, and other ambient lighting present in urbanized settings. Sources of glare include glass or metallic surfaces or finishes, on structures and even off of vehicle windshields, that could cause glare effects. Some of the more suburban, lower density, or open space areas of the City have less sources of illumination, lighting and glare. Implementation of the proposed Project would occur in areas designated for redevelopment and would allow for development of currently underutilized parcels in the City. Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within currently illuminated areas. While the increased residential density associated with Project implementation would likely introduce new sources of light and glare in their immediate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and light standard heights (City of Seal Beach 2021). As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would adhere to the provisions of the Municipal Code and all other applicable regulations related to light and glare, the increased residential density proposed by the Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect views in the area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-7 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 3.2.1 Environmental Setting As outlined in the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element of the General Plan, open space land is defined as any parcel of land or water that is essentially unimproved and is devoted to open space use. Land which is used as managed production of resources is protected under the Element. Within the City, certain parcels of land principally within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are being used for agricultural production. Approximately 2,000 acres of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are currently used for the production of staple vegetable crops, such as beets, carrots, and corn (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, according to the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), prime and unique farmland are identified within the City’s boundaries specifically within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The other portions of the City are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land or Other (DOC 2023a). FMMP defines Other Lands as Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land (DOC 2023a). According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Production (CAL FIRE), there are no Timber Production Zones designations or Timber Harvesting Plans within the City (CAL FIRE 2023b). □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-8 3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project 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? Finding: No Impact As mentioned above, the Prime and Unique Farmland categories are mapped in areas of the City; however, these mapped areas are limited to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; however, the portions of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property where Sites 11 and 12 are located are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land on the FMMP. No other proposed Housing Opportunity Sites were identified on the FMMP as being located on Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to cause significant impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No Impact According to the City’s Zoning Map Index and Orange County’s Public Works Land Records Map, none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Williamson Contract and therefore, there would be no impact related to conflicting with a Williamson Act contract. (City of Seal Beach 2013; Orange County 2023). The City’s Zoning Code does not include any agricultural land use designations. However, some of the City’s commercial, industrial, and open space zoning designation allow agricultural uses onsite. Agricultral uses allowed in the City are mostly limited to nursery uses, with crop raising allowed under one open space zoning designation. As the City does not have any zoning designations that are specifically for agricultural uses, implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, none of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites that is not proposed for rezoning are under existing zoning designation that allow agricultural uses onsite. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning would be rezoned to residential zoning districts to allow for additional housing opportunities in the City and would not conflict with any agricultural zoned parcels. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-9 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Finding: No Impact As discussed above, there are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact As discussed above, the parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and there are no forest lands located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderate-income residential uses in areas throughout the City. As discussed above, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use, and important farmland was not identified amongst the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites. Although the Project involves rezoning to accommodate additional housing needs, the Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-10 3.3 AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 3.3.1 Environmental Setting The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non- desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties. SoCAB is designated nonattainment for ozone (O3) and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) under the California AAQS (City of Corona 2019). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with SCAG to attain the National AAQS. In March 2017, SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP which is composed of stationary and mobile-source emission reductions from regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefits from climate programs, mobile-source strategies, and reductions from federal sources such as aircrafts, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels. Strategies outlined in the 2016 AQMP would be implemented in collaboration between California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP forecasts that the SoCAB will need to increase oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reductions by 45 percent additional reductions above existing regulations for the 2023 ozone standard and 55 percent additional reductions above existing regulations to meet the 2031 ozone standard. 3.3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As result of increased development and densification associated with future Project implementation, emissions would be generated during both construction and operation of individual developments. Project IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-11 implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through conflict or obstruction of the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, these impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in a non-attainment area for National AAQS and California AAQS. As such, Project implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through a potential cumulatively considerable net increase of particulate matter during construction. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact While it is unlikely that sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, due to construction or operation associated with future Project implementation, there is the potential to cause significant environmental effects if such exposure were to occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would include the development and operation of new and more intense land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the City, from both stationary and mobile sources. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Project implementation could cause the generation of new sources of odors or other emissions. Generally, residential land uses do not generate odors that could affect a substantial number of people, because they are not considered a typical odor-producing source, such as a waste treatment facility or an industrial operation. While it is unlikely that substantial numbers of people could be adversely affected by odors due to future construction or implementation of the proposed Project, there is the potential for the Project to result in other emissions. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-12 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? 3.4.1 Environmental Setting The western edge of the City includes shoreline, beaches and marinas which support areas of biological diversity. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh area located at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. It includes habitats that are essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, including federal- and state-listed endangered species. The Seal Beach NWR is under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for the perpetuation of two endangered species, the light-footed Ridgway’s rail and the California least tern, and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other waterbirds (USFWS 2023a). Other species of concern found in the Seal Beach NWR include the Eastern Pacific green sea turtle, Belding’s savannah sparrow, and other year-round species including ospreys, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, brown pelicans, crabs, and snails. There are a number of winter migration species as well, including Canada, snow and Ross’ geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, American avocet, black-bellied plover, and least and western sandpipers. Additionally, many ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-13 California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, there can be small rays and sharks along the protected waters of the Seal Beach NWR (USFWS 2023b). In addition to the Seal Beach NWR, another area with potential sensitivity for biological resources is approximately 100-acres of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, which has been deed-restricted for future sale to a public agency for purposes of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. An adjacent approximately 50-acre oil production property has been similarly restricted (City of Seal Beach 2003). Numerous other parks, golf courses, greenbelts and open space corridors provide potential habitat areas for various plant, insect, bird, reptile and animal species. Due to its location along the shore of the Pacific Ocean, development and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are also subject to review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City is in the process of developing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) which will implement the Coastal Act at the local level, and reduce the need for direct project review from the Coastal Commission. 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project 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 regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats, and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. While some of the Project’s identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within highly urbanized areas, such as parking lots of existing commercial centers, other Housing Opportunity Sites are located in proximity to or within areas that are not developed or near areas of potential sensitivity for biological resources, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12. As such, future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on special-status species. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, portions of the City are located within the jurisdiction of the CCC. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are located within CCC jurisdiction, while Housing Opportunity II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-14 Sites 2 and 7 border the CCC jurisdictional boundaries (City of Seal Beach 2023b). Housing Opportunity Site 11 borders the Seal Beach NWR. As such, future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, the City has identified areas where wetlands and other sensitive marsh and coastal features are present, including within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, the Seal Beach NWR, and the beaches and shorelines along the western border of the City. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to minimize effects to wetlands, marshes and coastal areas, in compliance with the CCC and all other applicable requirements; however, several Housing Opportunity Sites may be located within proximity or within such areas and may have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project 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 native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As described above, the City and County have identified areas where native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species regularly occur, including the Seal Beach NWR. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are in the vicinity of the Seal Beach NWR, an important stop for migratory species along the Pacific Flyway, and Housing Opportunity Site 10 is located on a golf course which may be used by migratory species. Half of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the CCC jurisdiction and/or in proximity to the shoreline and beaches. As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would occur in proximity of areas, potential impacts to migratory species may occur. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Future residential development on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. All resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees (City of Seal Beach II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-15 2023e). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by this regulation and ensure the Project does not lead to removal of designated landmark trees. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, it does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats, and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. In addition to being located under CCC jurisdiction, the City is also included in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (CDFW 2023). Protected natural communities under the OCTA NCCP/HCP include California walnut woodland, canyon live oak ravine forest, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern will scrub and valley needlegrass grassland (CDFW 2013). Further evaluation is required to confirm that there would be no conflicts with these or other plans. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-16 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES CULTURAL and TRIBAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5.1 Environmental Setting For over 10,000 years, the Seal Beach area, including Anaheim Bay and the San Gabriel estuary, have supported Native American people and their cultures, with evidence of the City’s past found in the archaeological record and remaining historical sites; however, few archaeological sites remain in the City, primarily due to development along the coastline. As provided in the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources Element, prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrielino Native Americans, with the city on the southern end of the extensive tribal territory which extended into Ventura County to the north and San Bernardino County to the east (City of Seal Beach 2003). It is also understood that the Juaneño Native Americans were also present in the Seal Beach area, as the neighboring tribe to the south. More specifically, the Gabrielino community of Motuuchey was located in today’s Old Town area, and archaeological resources were primarily located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, Hellman Ranch and potentially on a Boeing property. In the 1780s, the historic settlement of the city began with the assignment of a 300,000-acre land grant of Rancho Los Alamitos, which supported agriculture and cattle grazing due to proximity to the Santa Ana River. The Mexican War of 1846 to 1848 marked the end of the Rancho era and Mexican governance, and in 1864, Rancho Los Alamitos was purchased by Jotham Bixby and German immigrants who formed the Anaheim agricultural colony. Anaheim Landing was the port created to facilitate goods movement in and out of the region and was the first port in Orange County. The area transitioned into the resort community of “Bay City,” in 1903, and was connected to Los Angeles with the “Red Cars” of the Pacific Electric Railroad. Today, an historic Red Car can be found on the old Pacific Electric right-of-way. In 1906, the longest pier south of San Francisco was constructed, and it included a bath house, dancing pavilion, roller coaster and more. With a population of 250, Bay City was incorporated in 1915, becoming known as Seal Beach, and the town was a successful resort community by the 1920s. A flurry of growth and development ended with the Great Depression, and in 1939, hurricane winds cut the pier in half. World War II brought a second boom of construction to the City, as military facilities were placed throughout the City and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station was built. IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ □ □ IZI □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-17 The development of Leisure World began in the late 1950s. With a current population of over 24,000, the City remains a tourist destination. Historic resources in the City include the Old City Hall, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The early port of Anaheim Landing is recognized for its historical significance by the State of California. The City’s General Plan Cultural Resources Element includes the following goal and policies related to cultural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003): Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. • Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project’s potential impacts to existing cultural resources. • Policy 2: Identify, designate, and protect sites and buildings of historic importance. • Policy 3: Coordinate cultural resource programs and development project review with affected resource agencies and Native American representatives. • Policy 4: Identify funding programs to assist private and public property owners in the preservation of buildings and sites of historic importance. • Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive to cultural resources. 3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing, and therefore, it does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to demolition or alteration of any historic resources. Furthermore, future development Projects would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources policies related to preservation of resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain historical resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-18 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project itself would not directly affect archaeological resources as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. However, Project implementation could indirectly affect archaeological resources, as it would allow for future development of the sites. Grading and construction activities of parcels identified for the Project could require earth moving activities that could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. According to the General Plan Cultural Resources Element, there are very few archaeological sites in the City. Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code, and cultural resources receive protection under both the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Long term implementation of the Project could allow development including construction activities and grading in areas with undiscovered archaeological resources. Therefore, the Project could result in potential unearthing of previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and result in significant impacts. The Project would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to archaeological and cultural resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain unknown archaeological resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during earth moving activities. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Although construction activities associated with development of the Project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-19 with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-20 3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES ENERGY RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Southern California Edison (SCE) is the provider of electrical services to most of the City. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside Counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County to the north, in gigawatt- hours (GWh) was approximately 81,128 GWh in 2021 (SCE 2019; CEC 2023a). Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2018 were: • 36 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind • 4 percent large hydroelectric • 17 percent natural gas • 6 percent nuclear • 37 percent unspecified sources (CEC 2019) Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the City and maintains transmission and distribution lines through the City. The service area of SoCalGas spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County in the southeast, to San Luis Obispo County in the northwest, to part of Fresno County in the north, and to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County in the east (SoCalGas 2023). Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2018 was 575.1 million therms, with 339 million therms used by residential uses (CEC 2023b). 3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in an increased intensity of uses and more residential units. These additional uses would consume more energy which could result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-21 b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact California’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program. In general, the state has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, 40 percent by 2024, 50 percent by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045 (California Public Utilities Commission). The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE and SoCalGas. As SCE and SoCalGas are required to meet the RPS goals for 2030 to provide at least 60 percent clean energy to its customers, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be consistent with statewide goals. The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update, and individual development projects constructed as a result of Project implementation would be required to comply with the current and future iterations the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement Housing Element Update policies which support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update includes the following goal and policies related to energy efficiency that would be applicable to the proposed Project: Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. • Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. • Policy 6b: Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. Therefore, with implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-22 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on strata 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 3.7.1 Environmental Setting The City is located in the Los Angeles coastal plain in the Peninsular Ranges of Southern California. These Ranges are made up of hills and ranges with intervening, long, and narrow valleys that trend northwest. The City is in a zone of deformation extending from the foot of the Santa Monica Mountains as far southeasterly as Newport Beach, called the Newport-Inglewood belt. The Newport-Inglewood belt is a surface expression of the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone (City of Seal Beach 2003). □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ ~ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-23 The majority of the City is located within an alluvial plan that extends southward from the convergence of Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River. The two channels drain from the northeast and north, and the combined flow reaches the sea at Alamitos Gap. Elevations within the City vary from approximately sea level to 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Landing Hill (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The entire City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located in the seismically active Southern California region. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fault (CGS 2023). All except one of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south of this zone and not within it. Housing Opportunity Site 12 is traversed by an earthquake fault and therefore, is located within an earthquake fault zone. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans, would ensure that potential surface fault rupture impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 3a: Require a soils and geology report to be prepared and filed for all development projects as specified in the City’s Municipal Code. • Policy 3b: Require geological surveys to be prepared after onsite borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are submitted to the City for approval. • Policy 3c: Require supervision by a state licensed soils engineer for grading operations which require a grading permit. • Policy 3d: Maintain and enforce protection measures which address control of runoff and erosion by vegetation management, control of access, and site planning for new development and major remodels, including directing runoff to the street and compliance with setbacks. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-24 • Policy 3e: Restrict development projects that will cause hazardous geologic conditions or that will expose existing developments to an unacceptable level of risk until the causative factors are mitigated. • Policy 3f: Require independent review of the geologic and soils reports as appropriate. • Policy 3g: File and reference copies of pertinent site-specific geologic information and index the information in the City’s Geographic Information System. • Policy 3h: Provide ongoing maintenance and inspection of all public drainage facilities and eliminate or mitigate uncontrolled storm drain flow on hillsides or bluffs. • Policy 3i: Require the use of drought-resistant vegetation with deep root systems where appropriate for safety reasons in new development projects to reduce the potential for overirrigation. Encourage the use of drought-resistant vegetation throughout the City through public education efforts. • Policy 3j: Maintain the present City practice of adopting the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (as amended and published by the International Conference of Building Officials at approximate three-year intervals) because it incorporates the latest accepted standards for seismic design that reflect advances in technology and understanding of hazards. • Policy 3k: Prohibit the location of new essential facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency centers and water tanks in geologically hazardous areas unless it is determined that there is no feasible alternative and the hazard is adequately mitigated. • Policy 3l: Require that earthquake survival and efficient post-disaster functioning be a primary concern in the siting, design and construction standards for new essential facilities. • Policy 3m: Evaluate the long-term risks and their associated costs versus the costs of relocation when major improvements to existing essential facilities are proposed and the facilities are located in known hazardous areas. Relocate the facility if the analysis indicates this is more cost effective in the long term. • Policy 3n: Determine the liquefaction potential of a site prior to development and require that specific measures be taken, as necessary, to reduce damage in an earthquake. • Policy 3o: Promote the collection of relevant studies on fault location and history of fault displacement and liquefaction for future refinement of the geological information within and around the City. • Policy 3p: Identify the effects of the most probable seismic event (Modified Mercalli intensity value VIII or more) on the infrastructure within the City. • Policy 3q: Incorporate information on the probable seismic event impacts on infrastructure into the development of capital improvement programs so as to upgrade the survivability of the infrastructure. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-25 • Policy 3r: Work with governmental agencies (i.e., Caltrans and Water Districts) and the public utility companies to identify and promote effective mitigation of the effects of the most probable seismic event on the infrastructure which supports the City of Seal Beach • Policy 3s: Prepare a Geological Hazards Map based on a study of the geological formations and hazards of the entire City, employing a format compatible with the City’s GIS mapping system. • Policy 3t: Integrate the latest information about earthquake survivability into the City’s public safety education program. Encourage the retrofitting of every home within Seal Beach for earthquake survival, especially in the area of adequate anchoring (tie-down) of the homes to their foundations. As there are no known active faults crossing the majority of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and majority of the sites are not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, ground rupture is unlikely. However, Housing Opportunity Site 12 is located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and, as such, there is some potential for ground rupture to occur. Potential impacts to new developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would be subject to individual CEQA analysis on a project level to analyze potential impacts related to seismic hazards. All future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be required to demonstrate conformance with federal, state, and local seismic design guidelines and requirements. Individual developments would be required to prepare and submit geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans and would be required to implement project-specific mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and preparation of seismicity reports would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact As with most of California, there is a significant potential for seismic ground shaking to occur. The Seal Beach Fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking in the City, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Other large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas, and many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year. An earthquake of moderate- to high-magnitude generated within the Los Angeles or Long Beach area could cause considerable ground shaking at the Housing Opportunity Sites, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the effects of strong seismic ground shaking, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, at a minimum. While there is no way to avoid ground shaking and earthquake hazards, compliance with CBC requirements, including specific provisions for seismic design, would mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes on new future construction. The Project would require that future residential development be II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-26 designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Liquefaction generally occurs as a result of strong ground shaking in areas where granular sediment or fill material either contains, or is located immediately above, high moisture content. The ground shaking transforms the material from a solid state to a temporarily liquid state and can result in settlement, flow failure, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction is a serious hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may sink or suffer major structural damage. These geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2023). Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies mentioned above and would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Landslides? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Landslides are the downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials including rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials under the direct influence of gravity. The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level, and there are no hills or mountains adjacent to them. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone (DOC 2023). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork; however, mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-27 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact During Project implementation and construction, onsite soils can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP is required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading, limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize soil erosion impacts that could result. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project be located on 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? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The General Plan identifies that the City’s Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City’s Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports are required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report, and geotechnical evaluations as required under Chapter 9.50.020 of the Municipal Code. Recommendations in the geotechnical reports are required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future residential development resulting from Project implementations. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-28 implementation would be required to comply with CBC and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With implementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: No Impact The General Plan identifies the City as completely “built out” and necessary infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project by itself would not directly affect paleontological resources, as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and, therefore, does not directly result in development. However, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could indirectly affect paleontological resources, as it would allow for future development of the sites. Grading and construction activities on Housing Opportunity Sites identified for future residential development could require earth moving activities that could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources and result in significant impacts. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain unknown paleontological resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-29 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 3.8.1 Environmental Setting Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent, which weight each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Based on a 100-year time horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon. Emissions from future residential development resulting from Project could be generated by the following sources: • Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the City boundaries and from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the City). • Energy: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas consumption used for cooking and heating in the City. • Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generated in the City. • Water/Wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water based on the overall water demand and wastewater generation in the City. • Area Sources: Emissions generated from light commercial equipment, agricultural, and construction equipment use in the City. ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-30 3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions; however, future residential development associated with Project implementation would result in greenhouse gas emissions. As such, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from future Project implementation that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project identifies Housing Opportunity Sites that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation Development of the Housing Opportunity Sites would require activities that would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions and greenhouse gases, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-31 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials are manufactured, transported, stored, used, and disposed of on a regular basis. Although hazardous materials incidents can happen anywhere, certain areas are at higher risk. Within the state, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) regulates the use and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a division of Cal EPA and works in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. The primary transportation routes of hazardous materials in Orange County near the City are the I-405 and I- □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-32 605 freeways. Some transportation of hazardous materials occurs on Pacific Coast highway and Seal Beach Boulevard within the City (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, there are several hazardous materials cleanup sites within the City that are listed on several databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website (SWRCB 2023). The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 2A: Coordinate with federal, state, and county hazardous waste management plans to protect the health and welfare of the public, the environment, and the economy of the City of Seal Beach through comprehensive programs that ensure safe and responsible management of hazardous waste and materials. • Policy 2B: Implement the measures outline in the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Plan, Orange County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and Hazardous Materials Area Plan, and the County’s Operational Area Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan to ensure the effective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste on a City-wide level. • Policy 2C: Support enforcement of state “right to know” laws, which outline the public’s right to information about local toxic producers. • Policy 2F: Facilitate coordinated effective response to hazardous materials emergencies in the City to minimize health and environmental risks. • Policy 2G: Promote public awareness in hazardous materials emergency response preparedness by any effective informational media, such as Emergency Preparedness Newsletter, neighborhood posters, and at least annual presentations at neighborhood association meetings. • Policy 2H: Support the combination of the OCFA’s hazardous materials disclosure program. Ensure annual inspections of businesses that generate or use hazardous materials, and identify and monitor any historical hazardous materials sites within the City for public health and safety issues. • Policy 2I: Promote public participation and education in the implementation of the programs identified in the County’s Hazardous Materials Management Program. • Policy 2J: Encourage OCFA to monitor the flow of hazardous materials through the City to ensure public safety. • Policy 2K: Encourage coordination between the OCFA and the Seal Beach Police Department in the designation of routes and enforcement of hazardous materials, routing ordinances, and laws with the I-405 freeway as the primary designated route. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-33 3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities associated with future residential development resulting from Project implementation is anticipated to involve demolition, grading, and construction of new structures and buildings. Hazardous materials, such as paints, sealants, solvents, diesel fuels, and other typical hazardous materials for construction would be used. With the use of these materials, there is potential for spills to create hazardous conditions. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities, and they would be required to adhere to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) throughout Project implementation. The Project is proposing rezoning and establishment of additional residential and housing zones for Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City. Upon completion of construction hazardous materials associated with Project operations would include materials used during typical household cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these potentially hazardous materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. Many of these materials are considered household hazardous waste, common wastes, and/or universal wastes by the USEPA, which considers these types of wastes to be common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when properly handled, transported, used, and disposed of (USEPA 2020). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow these types of wastes to be handled and disposed of with less stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not have to be managed as hazardous waste. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact During construction activities, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-34 Future Project implementation would establish additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. As mentioned above, common materials associated with residential uses include small quantity hazardous material, such as cleaners and pesticides. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are distributed throughout the City. Housing Opportunity Sites 8 and 11 are located within one-quarter mile of McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. As stated under Impact a), construction activities required for future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste, and emissions to minimize the potential for hazardous emissions to occur. Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project 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? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous materials release information for the II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-35 Cortese List. Several hazardous material sites are identified within the City; however, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified on the Cortese List. Individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an environmental site assessment (ESA) by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation of a Phase II ESA, which would consist of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement the recommendations included in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building permits. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at the local, state, and federal level would be required. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of environmental site assessments, impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 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 or private airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The closest public airport to the Housing Opportunity Sites is Long Beach Airport, located approximately 5.2 miles to the northwest of the City. The City is not located within the Long Beach Airport’s Airport Influence Area and therefore, Long Beach Airport operations would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites (Los Angeles County 2004). The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is not a public airport; however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity Sites 5, 6, and 10.). As identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the City is located within the airport’s notification area and the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the airport’s different height restriction zones and impact zones. Therefore, there is potential for development of the Housing Opportunity Sites to result in safety hazards. As discussed in Section 3.13, Noise, below, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the 65 decibel (dB) noise contour areas for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, under both existing and future scenarios, as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However, some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control measures to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-36 implementation of the Project could result in a safety or noise hazard for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). All future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future residential developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City’s EOP and LHMP. Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-37 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii. 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; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 3.10.1 Environmental Setting The City is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is the most extensive watershed in Orange County, running through a three-county area from its headwaters in the San Bernadino Mountains to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean (Orange County 2013). The Santa Ana River Watershed encompasses approximately 2,700 square miles. The City is located near multiple hydrologic features which include rivers, the Pacific ocean and wetlands. Within the City limits is the mouth of the San Gabriel River, draining an area of approximately 700 square miles within Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the Pacific Ocean, and various wetland areas that are subject to various sources of pollution within the community. The San Gabriel River is located along the western boundary of the City. The San Gabriel River originates in Los Angeles County but empties into the ocean at Seal Beach. Additionally, the river provides an outlet for flood control basins and channels □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-38 within the City. The river is a major source of ocean contamination after storm events due to the washing of upstream pollutants and trash into the ocean (City of Seal Beach 2003). The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 2N: Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm drain systems through construction upgrades and operation and maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate the flow of sewage into the City storm drains. • Policy 2O: Facilitate coordination and participation by all of the jurisdictions that make up the Los Angeles and Santa Ana RWQCBs to improve water quality. Encourage the elimination of sewer discharges and non-point source pollution into the San Gabriel River. • Policy 2S: Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increase in pollutant loads and flows, ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat, minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and the MS4s, and maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allows more percolation of storm water into the ground. • Policy 2U: Encourage the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed-scale retrofits, etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible. • Policy 2V: Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site. • Policy 2W: Establish development guidelines for areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss. 3.10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater system. Construction activities such as grading could accelerate the rate of erosion and cause substantial impacts to water quality. The City’s General Plan Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-39 Any projects that include one acre or greater of soil disturbance would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and associated NPDES regulations to ensure that potential for soil erosion is minimized. Future development associated with Project implementation would be required to comply with all relevant NPDES requirements and would be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, such as the preparation of a SWPPP, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed with existing uses; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Site with residential uses would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new residential development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project is proposing implementation of the City’s new Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which would result in the provision of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential to accommodate new housing developments to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. As II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-40 identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed; therefore, they do not provide substantial areas for groundwater recharge. As identified in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City provides water to its residents and other customers using the imported potable water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). According to the 2020 UWMP, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water during its Fiscal Year 2019- 2020 and by 2045, it is projected that the water supply portfolio would change to approximately 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water (City of Seal Beach 2021). Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would result in an increased demand of potable water in the City through increased development and resulting in indirect population growth; therefore, an increased demand to groundwater supplies would result. Therefore, implementation of the Project could result in decreased groundwater supplies resulting from increased demand, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would; i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning under the Project are already developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments. Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would utilize the existing drainage facilities in the existing surrounding areas. Additionally, Project implementation would require construction activities that could result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. As identified above, under Impact a), the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015 Controls for Water Quality Management outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Future development projects would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, including standard erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the risk of polluted runoff resulting from increased erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include an erosion control plan that identifies measures, such as diverting runoff from disturbed areas and treatment measures to trap sediment, to ensure there is no polluted runoff. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-41 would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the City; however, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial increases in impervious surfaces as the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning are already developed with existing uses and located in highly urbanized areas with substantial impervious surfaces. Though the Project may not result in substantial increased in impervious surfaces resulting in increased rate and amount of surface runoff, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in flooding impacts related to stormwater runoff. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. iii. 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; or Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified above under Impact c.i, the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the DAMP. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements, and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Compliance with these requirements would ensure both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not result in increased polluted runoff. However, as identified above under Impact c.ii, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-42 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows. Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, portions of the City are subject to flooding due to wave run-up which is typically caused by large swells produced by storms ay sea occurring at high tide (City of Seal Beach 2003). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to identify potential flood areas across the United States. A majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023). However, as identified by FEMA, Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within Zone D, an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards. Additionally, Housing Opportunity Site 10 and a portion of Housing Opportunity Site 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. As some of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within flood risk areas, future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project may be located in areas susceptible to flooding and implementation of the Project could impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified above under Impact 3.iv, a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023). However, Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within Zone D, an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards and Housing Opportunity Site 10 and a portion of Housing Opportunity Site 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Due to the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City is at risk of tsunamis. The City’s General Plan Safety Element identified that the risk of inundation by a tsunami appears to be low; however, if an earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of high inundation level could be expected (City of Seal Beach 2003a). As such, implementation of the Project could result in risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation resulting from flooding, tsunamis, and seiches and therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Measures identified above to ensure that developments have a less than significant impact on surface and groundwater quality would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with implementation of a water quality control plan. However, as identified above under Impact b), the Project may result in potentially significant impacts related to groundwater supplies such that the Project may II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-43 impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-44 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3.11.1 Environmental Setting The proposed Project is located in the City of Seal Beach, California, located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. It borders the City of Long Beach (Los Angeles County) to the north, the Orange County Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Project is interspersed throughout the City, which has a land area of approximately 13 square miles. The Project proposes to rezone six Housing Opportunity Sites, proposes a new Specific Plan for one site, and proposed a Specific Plan Amendment for another site, in order to allow increased residential densification which would result from implementation of the Housing Element Update. Additionally, the Project identified three underutilized sites and two military sites as Housing Opportunity Sites that could be redeveloped with residential uses to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. 3.11.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low- and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would occur within areas that are already developed and would not occur within any existing residential communities that could be divided. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated in a single area of the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in division of established communities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. □ □ IZI □ IZI □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-45 b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project is proposing to redevelop, or rezone identified Housing Opportunity Sites in various locations throughout the City. The Housing Element Update identifies 13 Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing. The sites are broken into two categories: underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and sites where zoning modification are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six require rezoning, two on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. Housing Opportunity Site 10 is going through its own rezoning and specific plan process with the current property owner. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites (Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-46 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 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? 3.12.1 Environmental Setting Mineral resources in the City include an oil extraction at Esther Island within the tidelands, oil extraction along the Newport-Inglewood Fault on the Hellman Ranch property, and an oil lease site in the Seal Beach NWR (City of Seal Beach 2003). The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 sets forth requirement for the state to classify all land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) that indicate the potential for mineral resources regardless of existing land use or ownership. However, there are no known or identified mineral resources identified within the Housing Opportunity Sites (DOC 2023b). 3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project 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? b) Would the project 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? a-b) Finding: No Impact The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area of locally important mineral resources (City of Seal Beach 2003). Housing Opportunity Site 9 is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas: Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach NWR. The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are residential, commercial, and other underutilized areas. Housing Opportunity Site 4 is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch, and is located approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. Additionally, the Housing Opportunity Sites are not currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known or designated mineral resources. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources, nor would it have potential impacts associated with the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site. As such, there would be no impact, and this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-47 3.13 NOISE NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? 3.13.1 Environmental Setting The City has set noise and vibration performance standards for noise sources in the City, which are adopted by reference from Orange County Code Section 4-6.1. City Municipal Code Chapter 7.15, Noise, defines the qualitative standards used in determining a potential violation and provides performance standards for interior and exterior noise by zone, based on land use (City of Seal Beach 2023e). Table 6 shows the acceptable interior and exterior noise limits by zone. Exterior noise limits in the table are based on the noise contours and compatibility guidelines provided in the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). Table 6: City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Interior (dBA Ldn)* Exterior (dBA Ldn) Time Period Noise Zone 1 – Residential Properties 55 55 7:00 am to 10:00 pm Noise Zone 1 – Residential Properties 50 50 10:00 pm to 7:00 am Noise Zone 2 – Commercial Properties 65 At any time Noise Zone 3 – Industrial, Manufacturing and Oil Properties 70 At any time Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, 2023. Notes: dB (decibels) at the A-weighted scale over a 24-hour, time-weighted annual average noise level. The City’s Municipal Code indicates that noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of real property are exempt from the noise standards if performed between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays and 8:00 am and 8:00 pm on Saturday (City of Seal Beach 2023e). IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-48 According to the General Plan Noise Element, the predominant noise source in the City is caused by automobiles and some overflights from military aircrafts. Noise sensitive receptors in the City include, but are not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, elder care facilities, or any other land use areas deemed as sensitive by the City. As part of the General Plan Noise Element, in 2002, 10 sites were selected for measurement of the existing noise environment, which proved to be highly variable, depending on the location (City of Seal Beach 2003). The time-averaged sound level in the City was in the range of approximately 59.8 to 70.3 dBA Leq. 3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Construction and operation resulting from future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in the generation of temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of future development projects. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may result in a substantial increase in ambient noise in excess of City standards. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Construction activities associated with development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites would generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration and noise levels, depending on construction procedures and equipment. Construction and operation of the future residential development resulting from Project implementation may result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The closest public use airport to the City boundaries is Long Beach Airport, which is located approximately 5.2 miles to the northwest, and its airport land use plan boundaries are approximately three miles from the City boundaries. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base conducts flights over the City and noise sensitive land uses throughout the week. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-49 not a public airport; however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity Sites 5, 6, and 10. The General Plan Noise Element provides noise contours prepared by the California National Guard, and several noise sensitive areas north of I-405 were experiencing aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 dB at the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). General Plan Noise Element Figure N-5 depicts the existing noise contours of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, and Figure N-6 depicts the future noise contours. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, both in the existing and future scenarios, as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However, some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control measures to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, implementation of the Project could result in excessive noise levels for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-50 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.14.1 Environmental Setting Seal Beach was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community and beachside tourist destination. The population of the City remained relatively stable from 1915 to 1944 with little more than 1,000 residents. However, in 1944 the U.S. Navy acquired half of the city to construct the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station bringing new residents to the City. The population increased to more than 7,000 people by 1954. In 1962, the Leisure World retirement community was established in the City with an estimated 9,000 senior residents. Other housing development during this time took place in the neighborhoods known as College Park East, College Park West, and Marina Hill; and the Surfside community was annexed into the City. However, these development booms were followed by very limited growth in the 1970’s and afterward. During the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, the City had an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent compared to 0.7 percent for the region as a whole. According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the City had an estimated population of 24,992 residents in 2020 and as of January 1, 2021, the City population was estimated to be approximately 24,443 residents (City of Seal Beach 2022). Additionally, as of January 1, 2023, the Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates identifies the City’s population to be approximately 24,647 residents (DOF 2023). The housing stock in the City consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family units with one mobile home park. The City’s Housing Element Update identified that the most commonly occurring household size in the City is one person (45.1 percent) and the second-most occurring household is of two people (35.4 percent) (City of Seal Beach 2022). As of January 1, 2023, the City is estimated to have 14,675 total housing units with a vacancy rate of 9.3 percent (DOF 2023). ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-51 3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The City is proposing a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income households. The City’s 2021 – 2029 Housing Element Update was adopted by City Council on February 7, 2022. Pursuant to the state’s RHNA allocation, the City is required to plan for 1,243 new housing units, with 258 units allocated for very low-income households, 201 units allocated for low-income households, 239 units allocated for moderate-income households, and 545 units allocated for above moderate-income households. The City’s RHNA allocation was 1,243 new housing units, and the Housing Element Update requires the City to demonstrate that it can accommodate the RHNA allocation, as well as an additional buffer and, therefore, the City proposes a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income households, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. Certification of the proposed Project itself would not result in direct unplanned population growth as the Project is proposing the rezoning and identification Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for more residential development potential and not the actual development of these sites. However, certification of the Project would lead to more parcels in the City being available for residential developments and could result in indirect impacts to population growth. According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). The identified Housing Opportunity Sites could accommodate a total of 1,833 housing units at maximum buildout of each individual site. If all Housing Opportunity Sites are developed to the maximum allowable density with residential uses to provide an additional 1,833 housing units, it would result in a population growth of approximately 3,354 residents. According to the DOF’s population estimates, the City had an estimated population of 24,647 as of January 2023 (DOF 2023). Therefore, the 3,354 residents that would be generated by maximum buildout of the Project would result in a 12 percent increase in population over current conditions. The SCAG identifies growth forecast projections for each county and city under jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted on September 3, 2020, included a demographics and growth forecast technical report that identifies the projected growth for each county and city under the jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s growth forecast identifies the anticipated population for Seal Beach by the year 2045 to be 25,400 residents (SCAG 2020). As the City’s current population is identified at 24,647 residents and implementation of the Project would result in an increase of 3,354 residents, the projected increase in residents resulting from implementation of the Project would be greater than the projected growth for the City. Project implementation would be in compliance with General Plan and Housing Element Update policies to provide for balanced housing types and affordability levels and provide access to affordable housing to lower-income households. Additionally, the Project would ensure that the City is in compliance with the II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-52 state’s RHNA allocation for the City. However, as the Project would result in an increase in the number of residents above the projected future residential population for the City, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in potentially significant impacts related to population growth. Therefore, this topic will be further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning and the identified underutilized sites include a variety of uses, including commercial, retail, industrial, storage, residential, and military. The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City but would result in changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the site. Project implementation would not require relocation of existing developments, as it would not directly lead to development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites. However, if the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified for new development or redevelopment on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur. Individual development and redevelopment of the sites may result in displacement of existing people or housing if the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are currently developed with existing residential uses. However, the Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-53 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other Public Facilities? 3.15.1 Environmental Setting Fire Protection OCFA provides fire protection and emergency medical services in the City. OCFA also serves 23 cities within the County and all unincorporated areas. The OCFA protects over 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations located throughout the County. OCFA Reserve Firefighters work 10 stations throughout Orange County (OCFA 2023). The OCFA 2022 Statistical Annual Report identified that the department employed a total of 1,556 staff for various positions throughout the OCFA. In 2022, OCFA responded to 175,457 incidents. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the fire response zones for OCFA Fire Stations 63 and 64. Police Protection Police services for the Project would be provided by the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD). SBPD is responsible for updating the Emergency Services Plan, incorporating a model citizen response model, evacuation plans, emergency aid, comprehensive communications components, and a coordination program with other local government agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies (City of Seal Beach 2003). Schools The City is part of the Los Alamitos Unified School District (Los Al USD) which includes K-12 education. Within Los Al USD, there are nine school campuses serving more than 9,500 students in its jurisdiction. There is only one Los Al USD school within the City, McGaugh Elementary School. ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-54 Parks The City offers built and natural trails, developed parks, beaches, and golf courses as some of the recreational opportunities in the City. The public park system in the City includes mini, neighborhood, community, and major/regional parks that are differentiated by scale, population served, and amenities. The City’s Park standard is based on guidance provided by California Government Code Section 666477, referred to as the Quimby Act, and the City has a park standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. In addition to various parks, the shoreline of Seal Beach is considered to be of regional significance. Other Public Facilities – Libraries The Orange County Library operates 33 libraries within the County. There are two libraries within the City, including Orange County Library Seal Beach Branch, located approximately 0.15 mile south of the Housing Opportunity Site 8, and Leisure World Library, located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2. The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to public services (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 1C: Continue to maintain the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and provide for its adequate support and staffing, including the acquisition and maintenance of a mobile Incident Command Support vehicle for emergency response. • Policy 1L: Evaluate the location of all public facilities necessary for emergency response in relation to the City's current Hazard Maps and the level of risk associated with their locations, and move facilities located in high or extreme hazard areas to areas less subject to hazards, if feasible. • Policy 1M: Ensure that any new public facilities are designed and located in such a manner as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce the utility of the facility following a disaster. • Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less. 3.15.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire Protection? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-55 The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However, implementation of the Project would result in facilitation of up to 1,833 new housing units being developments in the City and would result in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services. The increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services could result in impacts to fire services and facilities, including response times or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. ii. Police Protection? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However, implementation of the Project would result in facilitation of up to 1,833 new housing units being developments in the City and would result in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for police services. The increase in demand for police services could result in impacts to police services and facilities, including response times or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. iii. Schools? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. As stated in the Housing Element Update: State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Development fees will vary from project-to-project depending on the specific characteristics. Table IV-8 summarizes the development fees for typical residential projects. Currently, a majority of the City’s K-12 student population needs to travel outside the City to attend school, and Los Alamitos USD is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos USD schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios (Los Alamitos Unified School District 2023). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would also be required to comply II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-56 with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. Therefore, with the payment of required fees and incorporation of General Plan policies, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Parks? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. Future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occur incrementally as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owner. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with existing park facilities. Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increase in demand for parks throughout the City. Though the increase in demand for park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to increase parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. v. Other Public Facilities – Libraries? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Project implementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand on public facilities. The Leisure World Library located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result of future Project implementation. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with General Plan policies that would ensure adequate library services are provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-57 3.16 RECREATION RECREATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.16.1 Environmental Setting Open space or outdoor recreation is defined by the City as land that is set aside for neighborhood, community or regional parks, beaches, special use parks or facilities, greenbelts, and open space corridors (City of Seal Beach 2003). Sunset Marina Park and the shoreline of Seal Beach are some of the recreational areas located within the City that provide various types of recreational activities for the City’s residents and adjacent cities residents can utilize. The City offers approximately 77.3 acres of parks and open space for various recreational activities (Seal Beach 2003). 3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis 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? b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with existing park facilities and therefore, individual developments proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites would not result in conversion of parks or recreational facilities to residential uses. Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increase in demand for parks throughout the City. Though the increase in demand for park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to increase parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. The Project could increase the use of existing parks and recreational cities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be IZI □ □ □ IZI □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-58 accelerated and may require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-59 3.17 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersection(s) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 3.17.1 Environmental Setting SB 743 caused revisions to the CEQA Guidelines which established new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts, so that level of service or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion would not be the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. The revised CEQA Guidelines utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric to evaluate the significance of transportation related impacts for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided a Technical Advisory (December 2018) that recommends specific VMT significance thresholds that may constitute a significant transportation impact and lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. OPR recommends use of a per-capita measurement of VMT for CEQA analysis based on average VMT per resident for evaluation of residential development. The City has similarly adopted thresholds of significance consistent with the OPR recommendation. Certain types of development, such as development within a one-half-mile of an existing major transit stop can generally be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Regional and local access roads in the City include SR 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), SR 22 (Garden Grove Freeway), I-405 (San Diego Freeway), Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Boulevard, Main Street, and Marina Drive. OCTA provides public transportation services on Bus Routes 1, 42 and 60. Senior transportation programs are provided by California Yellow Cab, and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation is also provided to provide access for routine medical care (City of Seal Beach 2023f). There are also multiple pedestrian and bicycle paths in the City, and the General Plan Circulation Element includes goals, objectives and policies related to improved bicycle and pedestrian routes (City of Seal Beach 2003a), as follows: Goal: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school and recreational use. ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-60 • Objective: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to citywide standards and practices. • Policies: Develop citywide standards for construction and maintenance of bikeways and pedestrian walkways. Develop and adopt a planned bikeway system that is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of County-wide Bikeways, and other adopted Master Plans, to assure that local bicycle routes will be compatible with routes or neighboring jurisdictions. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities. Where appropriate, require proposed developments adjacent to proposed bikeway routes to include bicycle paths or lanes in their street improvement plans and to construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition of approval. Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation. Require plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to give priority to providing continuity and closing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network. Develop programs that encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads, and streets wherever possible for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians. Develop a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan that facilitates pedestrian traffic in major activity areas. Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Require the installation of sidewalks with all new roadway construction and significant reconstruction of existing roadways. Develop a plan and pursue funding for bicycle support facilities and cycling education/information programs. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-61 3.17.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems, which would require the improvement and expansion of the circulation system, in addition to what was evaluated in the Housing Element Update. As such, an evaluation of the policies addressing potential impacts to these facilities is required, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Project would change the City’s zoning code to allow for increased and densified residential development at the identified Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city. Traffic generated by future Project implementation, in additional to regional growth, could contribute to already congested traffic conditions in and around the City. In accordance with the City’s VMT guidelines, the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), or another similar model as approved by the City Engineer, would be used to evaluate the Project’s potential impact on VMT. As such, an evaluation of Project consistency with the applicable VMT thresholds is required, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact As with the General Plan, Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the city. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines, as well as the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual, in addition to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-62 d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact As stated above, Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City which could result in inadequate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project are not designed to City standards and requirements. As such, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features, which would be made in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-63 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? 3.18.1 Environmental Setting According to the City’s General Plan, prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrielino- Native Americans, who inhabited much of northern Orange County. The Gabrielinos were known for high population densities, complex social organization, and highly developed maritime economies. The Gabrielinos were in an area that extended from Ventura County to the north and San Bernadino County to the east. The tribes maintained a common language, material culture, and ceremonial and political systems. The Gabrielino community of Motuuchey was located in Seal Beach. In addition to the Gabrielino, it is understood that the Juaneno Native Americans, the neighboring tribe to the south, also frequented the Seal Beach area (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision of ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-64 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? i-ii) Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The County, as the CEQA Lead Agency, will consult with appropriate tribes with the potential for interest in the region. Based on this consultation, it will be identified if the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in an area having the potential for tribal cultural resources. SB 18 states: “Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.” In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and SB 18, the City provided notice to the appropriate Native American Tribes on November 15, 2023, inviting them to participate and consult with the City through its AB 52 and SB 18 Native American outreach efforts. The results of the outreach and consultation effort will be described in the EIR. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be evaluated further in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-65 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supply available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 3.19.1 Environmental Setting The City’s current population is served by existing utility and service systems, as described below. Water The City a retail water supplier that provides water for its residents and their customers using the imported water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, MWDOC and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD. The City’s Water Division operates three active groundwater wells, an active service connection with MWDOC, emergency interconnections with other utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations, four disinfection sites, approximately 680 hydrants and manages 74.8-mile water mains system with about 5,346 service connections. Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 acre-feet (AF) for potable use. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water. There is currently no recycled water available for use within the City’s service area (City of Seal Beach 2021). ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-66 Wastewater The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) for treatment and disposal. The sewer system service area encompasses about 1,705 acres and includes approximately 34 miles of sewer main, serving about 5,000 customers. The wastewater collected in the City’s system is conveyed to OC San’s extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (MGD) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. In 2020, 2,520 AF of wastewater was collection from the City (City of Seal Beach 2021). Stormwater Drainage The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. Much of the City’s runoff drains into the Navel Weapons Base with the remainder split between the Pacific Ocean, Coyote Creek, and the San Gabriel River (City of Seal Beach 2023d). Solid Waste The City contracts with Republic Services to provide trash, recycling, and green waste collection for all City residents and commercial businesses (City of Seal Beach 2023c). Other Utilities Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-67 3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occur incrementally as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owner. Under implementation of the Project, redevelopment of underutilized sites could accommodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide approximately 1,833 additional housing units. The addition of approximately 1,833 additional housing units would result in increased demand to water, wastewater, stormwater, and other utilities and its facilities. This increase in demand could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Would the project have sufficient water supply available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project could result in approximately 1,833 additional housing units in the City which would increase demand for water supply. The Project would require an evaluation of water supply needs, which would include an analysis of the sufficiency of available and new water supplies to serve the Project, in addition to reasonably foreseeable development. As such, this potentially significant impact will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project could result in approximately 1,833 additional housing units in the City which would increase demand for wastewater treatment. This increased demand could result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have capacity to serve the projected demand and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-68 d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact According to CalRecycle, in 2022 the City’s residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually (CalRecycle 2022). According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide approximately 1,833 additional housing units to the City, the 1,833 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,354 people. Using the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21,130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of 28,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually. This is not anticipated to result in significant impacts, as buildout of the additional residential units would take place over time and solid waste generated would increase incrementally over time as the additional residential units are constructed. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Exiting regulations related to solid waste include AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 341, AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991, California Green Buildings Standards Code, and the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. The Project would be required to adhere to all relevant existing statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including waste diversion and reduction measures adopted by the City. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation are constructed II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-69 and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-70 3.20 WILDFIRE WILDFIRE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 3.20.1 Environmental Setting The City and Project area are surrounding by urban and developed lands. The neighborhood of College Park West is identified by the City as a community of risk to wildfire as a result of its isolation, proximity to open space areas, topographic conditions, and regional wind patterns (City of Seal Beach 2003). The Housing Opportunity Sites and surrounding vicinities are not identified as communities at risk and do not contain land designated as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2023a). The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the jurisdiction of the OCFA Division 1. The majority of the City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located within a Local Responsibility Area, as much of the City has been identified as have a low risk for wildfire. Furthermore, Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) are located in the central portion of the City, encompassing Seal Beach NWR, Joint Forces Training Base, and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (CAL FIRE 2023c). The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to wildfire hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 1A: Periodically review and update the Emergency Operations Plan to ensure effective implementation of the Plan during an emergency. Incorporate into the Plan as appropriate: o a citizen response model using a neighborhood coordinate system, such as a Neighborhood Watch program; □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-71 o a comprehensive communications component that maximizes public emergency coordination, response and resource allocation; o a program of coordination with county, regional, state, and federal emergency agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies and their plans; and o a program of coordination with the police. • Policy 1B: Amend the Emergency Operations Plan to include evacuation plans, and include provisions for emergency shelter, transportation, clothing, food and medical aid, identifying the facilities and persons within the community that may be utilized in an emergency and communicating this information to neighborhood associations and the American Red Cross. • Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less. • Policy 4B: Educate and inform the public on fire safety, especially regarding landscaping installation and maintenance in urban areas, to further protect the community and the environment from unnecessary fire hazards. • Policy 4C: Enhance the ability of all structures within the City to resist wildland and structural fires throughout ongoing, appropriate and cost-effective changes to the City’s Zoning, Building and Fire Codes and standards. • Policy 4D: Work with the Water Department and OCFA to analyze the supply and delivery of the water system for fire fighting use to help identify and correct deficiencies. • Policy 4E: Develop and early warning system of Santa Ana wind fire danger to alert the public of possible precautions or safety measures that may be taken during those critical times. • Policy 4F: As a condition of new development, require private responsibility for development and maintenance necessary new fire flow water lines and hydrants in accordance with the recommendations of OCFA. • Policy 4G: Encourage property owners to create defensible space surrounding their homes, including providing access for firefighters, maintaining planting and outdoor areas, and minimizing combustible structures. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-72 3.20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: No Impact Project implementation would not occur within a SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? b-d) Finding: No Impact The Project proposes rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income housing, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. As Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ, the Project would entail the redevelopment and rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update. Future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA Community Risk Reduction Division would minimize impacts resulting from Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development would not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, Project II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-73 implementation would not exacerbate fire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks, and there would be no impact. Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for additional housing and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development. Associated infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with City and County requirements and regulations and would be required to adhere to the measures in the individual requirements for new infrastructure to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-74 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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)? c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3.21.1 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to biological and cultural resources, and these impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. Consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 is currently being conducted and has not yet been completed at the time of this document. As such, impacts related to tribal cultural resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative 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)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related projects, has the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts when the independent impacts of the ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-75 proposed Project and the impacts of related projects combine to create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone. A list of the related projects or growth projections will be developed for the EIR. The potential for the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects and their cumulative contributions to environmental impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. The cumulative impacts addressed in the EIR will be the same as the individual resource areas which will be evaluated in the EIR. The extent and significance of potential cumulative impacts resulting from the combined effects of the proposed Project plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As described in this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to human beings resulting from potential air quality and GHG emissions, noise, transportation, and water quality impacts. Therefore, further analysis of these potential impacts is required, and potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Report Preparation 4-1 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS Preparers Trevor Macenski Senior Principal; Principal in Charge Anna Radonich Principal Environmental Planner; Project Manager Emily Medler Environmental Planner Jennifer Webster Environmental Planner Kaela Johnson Environmental Planner; GIS II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References 5-1 5.0 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023b. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. NCCP Plan Summary – Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP - Natural Community and Land Cover Types. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=65795&inline. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. NCCP Plan Summary – Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/OCTA. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023a Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, June 15, 2023. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d 008. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023b. Forest Practice Watershed Mapper v2. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/Watershed_Mapper/. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023c. State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765 ce1. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Disposal Rate Calculator – Seal Beach, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator. Accessed August 2023. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. 2018 Power Content Label Submitted by Southern California Edison, Version July 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 01/2018_PCL_Southern_California_Edison.pdf. Accessed August 2023. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed August 2023. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023b. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed August 2023. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References 5-2 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigations. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 2023. California Public Utilities Commission. 2023. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2013. Zoning Map (Index) – Updated March 2013. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MainIndexForZoningMaps_2013.pdf. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2017. Emergency Operations Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Basic%20Plan%20September%20Combined %20(Final3%20111417).pdf?ver=2018-02-03-023025-607. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final Draft, June 2021. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.05.27.pdf?ver=2021-06-01-161424-263. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2022. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element – Adopted February 7, 2022. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/6th%20Seal%20Beach%20Housing%20Elem ent_Adopted-compressed.pdf?ver=2022-02-10-091549-117. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023a. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element – Updated August 24, 2023. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Housing%20Element/SB_Housing- Element_Draft%20Aug%202023%20Introduction%20and%20Needs%20Assessment%20Redline .pdf?ver=2023-08-24-140025-913×tamp=1692911346061. Accessed October 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023b. City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, Draft May 2023. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Seal%20Beach%20LUP_DRAFT%20compre ssed.pdf?ver=2023-05-09-154143-560. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023c. City of Seal Beach Public Works Department – Maintenance Operations Division – Trash & Recycling. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Public- Works/Maintenance-Operations#trash_recycling. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023d. City of Seal Beach Public Works Department – Storm Water & NPDES. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Storm-Water-NPDES. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023e. Seal Beach, California Municipal Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/seal_beach_ca/pub/municipal_code. Accessed August 2023. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References 5-3 City of Seal Beach. 2023f. Transportation Services. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/City- Services/Transportation-Services. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for- cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/. Accessed August 2023. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. Accessed August 2023. Los Alamitos Unifies School District. (2003). Our District. https://www.losal.org/our-district. Accessed August 2023. Los Angeles County. 2004. Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan. https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Los-Angeles-County-Airport-Land-Use- Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2023. Orange County. 2013. County of Orange General Plan – Resources Element, December 2013. https://ocds.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocds/files/import/data/files/40235.pdf. Accessed August 2023. Orange County. 2023. Orange County Landbase. https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/. Accessed August 2023. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023. Orange County Fire Authority website – Member Cities. https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/PartnerCities.aspx. Accessed August 2023. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker. Accessed August 2023. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121. pdf?1646938785 . Accessed September 2023. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 2023. https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. Accessed September 2023. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. Southern California Edison’s Service Area. https://newsroom.edison.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/166/files /20193/SCE%20Service%20Area%20Fact%20Sheet_Ver2_04252019.pdf. Accessed August 2023. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2023. Company Profile. https://www.socalgas.com/about- us/company-profile. Accessed August 2023. II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References 5-4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach. Accessed August 2023. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge – Species. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach/species. Accessed August 2023. II WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AS PART OF NOP PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Greetings, Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez <Al ejandro.S anc hez-Lopez@ longbeach.gov> Friday, Decembe r 15, 2023 4:42 PM Alexa Smittle Alison Spindler -Ruiz City of Long Beach public com ment on the City of Seal Beach Housi ng Element and Zon ing Code Updates Project Environmental Im pact Report Sea l Beach Housing Element EIR Lett er of Support.pdf Please find attached public comment submitted on behalf of the City of Lon g Beach's Community Development Department reg arding City of Seal Beac h's Housi ng Element and Zo ning Code Update s Project (Proj ect) Environmental Impact Rep o rt (EIR). Please do not hesitate to contact me with any qu estions. Best, Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez Advance Planning Officer Community Development I Planning Bureau / Advance Planning Division 411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. I Long Beach, CA 90802 Office: 562.570.6553 LONG BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF LONG BEACH December 15, 2023 Alexa Smittle City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Ms. Smittle: Community Development Department Pl a nning Bureau 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194 On behalf of the Community Development Department for the City of Long Beach , I am writing this letter in strong support of the City of Seal Beach 's Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on February 7 , 2022 and updated August 24 , 2023 . This endeavor showcases the City 's commitment to addressing the regional housing crisis while adhering to state legislation and the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element includes provisions for our most vulnerable populations allocating 459 of 1,243 new units for low-and very low-income households , such as unhoused people , seniors , single-parent households , large families , and persons with disabilities . These allocations align w ith Long Beach 's goals and commitment to foster and protect our diverse communities and ensure housing opportunities are access ible for everyone. Moreover, we appreciate the effort to locate and utilize underdeveloped sites across the c ity in order to not overly concentrate lower income housing in low-resource areas and to create a "buffer" of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation to account for "No Net Loss " provis ions of Senate Bill 166 . This will guarantee much-needed housing that is sufficient for the growing regional population and protect hard-working families . The EIR shows that the Project has provided necessary environmental evaluations , analysis , and mitigation measures in terms of air quality, greenhouse gases , and transportation . The fact that the Housing Element w ill provide housing in various locations across the city allows for equitable and sustainable growth , and a more responsive and resilient community . We encourage the City to ensure that sites a re designated for low-and moderate-income housing and that if market-rate housing is approved on these sites , new site s are identified and approved for low-income housing throughout the City to make up for lost capacity and maintain geographic equity . Furth e r, we believe the City should maximize public participation and engage not only affected property owners , the Building Industry Association , and affordable housing developers , but also community members , non-profit organizations , faith -based institutions , CITY OF LONG BEACH Community Development Department Planning Bureau 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194 renter associations , and the populations they are trying to protect during the entirety of this rezoning effort . We believe the Project will provide affordable housing in opportunity areas , alleviate zoning constraints on the current housing inventory, and help achieve regional and state housing goals . The City of Long Beach Planning Bureau supports the Project and its associated EIR and looks forward to collaborating with Seal Beach in our shared efforts to provide inclusive and equitable fair housing opportunities for all. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ded ication to building a sustainable future. Sincerely, A&fandw sanc/4J-urJ Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez Advance Planning Officer Long Beach Community Development 562. 570 . 6553 Alejandro.sanchez-lopez@longbeach .gov Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hello Ms. Smittle, Lugaro, Julie M@DOT <julie.lugaro@dot.ca.gov> Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM Alexa Smittle OPR State Clearinghouse Comment Letter for the for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project -12-ORA-2023-02430 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project -12- ORA-2023-02430.pdf I have attached the Comment Letter for the for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project-12-ORA-2023-02430. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you, Julie Lugaro, M.S. Associate Transportation Planner Local Development Review/ Climate Change Coordinator California Department of Transportation Caltrans, District 12 1750 E. 4th Street Santa Ana, CA. 92705 1 CALIFORNIA STATE TRAN SPORTATION AGENCY California Department of Transportation DISTRICT 12 1750 East 4th Street. Suite 100 I SANTA ANA. CA 92705 (657) 328-6000 I FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711 h tt p s://do l .ca .g o v /c a ltrans-n e ar-m e /distric t-12 December 15, 2023 Ms. Alexa Smittle Community Development Director City of Sea l Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA. 907 40 Dear Ms. Smittle, GAVIN N EWSOM. GOVER NOR •• lb/trans File : LDR/CEQA SCH:2023110425 12-ORA-2023-02430 Thank you for inclu d in g the California Department of Transportation (Ca ltrans) in the review o f the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft En v ironmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project . The Initial Study was prepared to analyze potential impacts related to implementati on of the City's Housing Element and Zoning Code Update. The Housing El ement identifies 13 Hou sing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a ) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifi cations are proposed. Of th e 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning , one wou ld be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan , and one would require an amendment t o the Main Street Specific Plan. The rezoning e ffort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHO, which would apply t o five of the Housing Opportunity Sites . This new zone district wou ld facilitate housing for lower-income households as require d by the state 's RHNA allocation for the City and facil itate th e in c lusion of affordable units. Implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update would result in the City being able to accommodate 1,833 additional housing units pursuant to the City's RHNA allocation. The Project site is c urrentl y comprised of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City totaling approximately 278 acres. The City located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), Califo rnia . It borders the City of Long Bea c h and Los Angeles County t o the northwest, th e Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north , Westm in ster to th e east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pa cific Ocean to the west. The City has a land area of approximate ly 13 square "Provide a safe and reliable transportation nelwork that serves all people and respects the environment" City of Sea l Bea ch December 15 , 2023 Page 2 miles. State Routes 405 , 22 and 1 reside w it hin the proje c t a rea and are owned and operated by Caltrans. Therefore , Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project, and has th e following commen t s: 1. Caltrans supports opportunities fo r affordable housing , and th e state mandates that cities must p lan for housing needs of future residents of a ll incomes. Please provide an analysis and discussion that would assist in accommodating the Regional Ho u sin g Needs Assessment (RHNA) alloc ation per the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD). 2. Ca ltrans recogn izes our responsibi lity to assist commun ities of color and under- serve d communities by removing barriers to provide a more equitable transportation system for all. The Department firmly e mbraces racial equity, in clu sio n, and diversity. The se values are foundational t o achieving our v ision of a cleaner, safer, and more access ible a nd more connected transportation system. Pleas e consider including a discussion on equity in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3. Caltrans supports projects which provide a diversity of housing choices and destinations accessible by Active Tr ansportation (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian) a nd trans it users. Please consider improvin g multimoda l conn ections t o h o usin g which will encourage futu re residents , vis it ors, and workers in the c ity t o utilize a ll m odes of transportation . Increasing mu ltimoda l transportation will lead to a reduction to congestion, Vehicle Miles Trave led, and improve air quality. 4. Ca ltra ns seeks to promote safe, accessible, multimodal transportation . Pl ease conside r met h ods to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to ve hicles by lessening th e time that th e user is in the li ke ly path o f a mot o r v e hicle . o On pdf page 100 , stating "Develop c itywide standards for construction and mainten ance of b ikeways and pedestrian wa lkways.", p lease consider Caltrans guidelines on buil ding separated cycle tracks infrastructure (DIB 89) - -https://dot .ca.gov /-/media/dot-media /programs/design/documents /dib- 89 -02-fina l-a 11 y.pdf. o On the same page, it is noted that "[developing] a p lanned bikeway that is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of County-wide Bikeways , and other adopted Maste r Plans, to assure that local bicycle routes w ill be compatible with routes or neighboring jurisdictio ns" --please review OCT A's regional bikeways strategy to ensure alignment w ith existing p lans, found here: https://www.octa .net/getti n g-arou n d/active/oc-bike/bikeways- p lanning/overview / "Pro vide a safe a nd reli a ble transport ation network that se rves all people a nd res p ects the enviro nment" Ci t y of Sea l Beach December 15, 2023 Page 3 5. Caltrans enc ourages the design of Complete Streets that include high-q u alit y pedestrian, b icycle, and trans it facili t ies t hat are safe and comfortable for u se rs of a ll ages and abili ties. This may include safety measures such as physica ll y separated sidewalks a n d b ike lanes, pedestria n-orie nted LED li ghting, hig h- v isib ili ty contine nta l crosswa lk st riping , ra ised crosswalks , re fu ge is lands, wayfinding signage, and safe connections to existing and proposed b icycle facili ties. Complete Streets improvements promote reg ional connectivity, improve air quality, reduce congestion , and increase safety for a ll modes of transporta tion. (see Caltrans' Director's Po li cy on Complete Streets here https://dot.ca.qov/-/media/do t -media/proqrams/esta/documents/dp-37 - complete-streets -a l 1 y.pdf) 6. For guidance on providing functi o n a l b ike parkin g , see the attached "Essentials of Bike Parking" guidance crea t ed by th e Assoc ia t ion of Pedest rian and Bicycle Professiona ls (link to online PDF: https://www.apbp.org/Publications). 7. During fu t ure cons truction , please ensure appropriate detours, signage, and safety measures are planned that prioritize and ensure t he safety and mobility o f pedestrians, bi c yclist s, and trans it users . 8 . Ens u re th at truck parking, in gress a nd egress , and st aging w ill not interfere w ith vehicle parking, pedestria n paths, or b icycle lanes/bicycle parking. Work w it h commu nit y representa ti ves to mitigate a ny truck t raffi c routing onto res identi a l streets or conflicting with other ro ad users , inclu ding and es peciall y bicyclist s and pedestrians. 9. Please id e ntify t he e xist ing transit services for local and regiona l bus serv ices including the connectivity to rai l se rvi c es from the nearest train st ations provided by Metrolink and/or Amtrak Pacific Surfl in er. A lso, p lease provide adeq u ate wayfin d ing signage to t ransit st ops wit hin a ll the project vicinit y and local roadways. l 0 . Consider how many in dividual packages wi ll be delivere d daily t o individual res idenc es within th e are a s id e ntified for increas e d ho us ing production. Shared drop-off locations c an help reduce the amount of driving done by delivery trucks and can increase th e e ffi cien c y of deli veries in densely developed areas. Simi larly, hi gh-density residen ti a l developments sho ul d consider automated parcel sys t ems (i.e ., Amazon Lockers ) so t hat deli veries ca n be made with one truck st op instead of multiple st ops to individual res idences. "Provide a safe and re liable tra nsporta tion n e two rk that serv es all people and res p ects the e nvironment" City of Seal Beach December 15, 2023 Page 4 l l. Consider accounting for off-street truck parking to help free up on- street space for other modes, such as city traffic , walking , and bicycling. Similarly, utilize alley space or similar areas, if available, to reduce the need for on-street parking which may conflict with highway/street flows. 12. If truck parking (i.e., for home deliveries) is to be on-street, ensure the width of the parking lane is wide enough for freight trucks without encroaching on bicycle lanes or street lanes. 13. Please consider designated on-street freight-only parking and delivery time windows to reduce the need for double parking. This strategy also helps prevent street traffic congestion. 14. Please note that this project should not present adverse impacts to the overall transportation system including: traffic circulation and the local Sta t e Highway Systems (SHS). Caltrans is requesting a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that focuses on the State facilities that would be impacted by future developments. 15 . The TIA will also need to assess and address new developments, the City's rezoning requirements, and multi-modal impacts. The results of these impacts will need to include an investigation and discussion of signal timing upgrades in order to accommodate the increase of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 1 6. A section of the TIA will also need to focus on how future developments could impact the Senior population as well as local pedestrian f acilities that cater to this population. 17. When analyzing the proposed projects potential short-and long-term traffic impacts with respect to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT's), please use the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts and add the analysis results to the TIA. 18. Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans's requirements for work done within State ROW , additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans's Encroachment Permits Manual at: http://www.dot.ca .gov /hg/traffops/developserv /permit s/ "Provide a safe and reliable transportation netw ork that serves a ll people a nd respects the environment" City of Seal Beach December 15, 2023 Page 5 19 . Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Ca ltran s Permits Office at (657) 328-6553 or D 12 .permits@doct.ca .gov . Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment Permits. For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure and any fu ture updates regarding the application process and permit rates, please visit the Caltrans Encroachment Permits homepage at https ://dot.ca .gov/programs/traffic-operations/ ep. Caltrans' mission is to provide a safe, sustainable, equitable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at Julie.lugaro @dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Scott Shelley Branch Chief, LOR-Climate Change-Transit Planning Caltrans, District 12 "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and resp ects th e environment" Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: ANNE CALVO <limeyanne@msn.com> Friday, December 8, 2023 12:34 PM Alexa Smittle Comments -Seal Beach Housing Element En vironmental Impact Report Foll ow up Flagged To: Alexa Smittle ASmittle@sea lbeachca.gov From: Anne Calvo limeyanne@msn .com Subject: Comments -Seal Beach Housing Element Environmental Impact Report I am a Leisure World resident and watched the recent Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting of December 6, 2023 . I am encouraged that the Board is critically evaluating the various 13 "opportunity sites." My comments concern site #2 Leisure World 5.5 acre site, now currently an RV storage area . I believe this site should be no longer considered on the Seal Beach Housing Element opportunity site list for the following rea sons . General Reasons Leisure World is a unique, over 55 senior community that was founded to serve low to medium fixed income and residents. The site is "built out" and is currently struggling to meet challenges in utility infrastructure (water, electric, sewer, drainage, etc.), maintenance and repairs. An additional block of development would require severe infrastructure upgrades and would necessarily cause an avalanche of related unintentional adverse impacts. The RV storage site is reserved for the residents of Leisure World and if taken away would deprive the residents of a long-standing amenity. Please note that another site in Seal Beach used for RV storage is also on the Opportunity Site list. If both were converted to housing, it would cause a crisis to many RV owners in Seal Beach. Environmental Impact Reasons Aesthetics -The 5 .5-acre site is located on the edge of the tidal/ drainage ditch adjacent to the Los Angeles Steam Plant. A multi-story building would look out and down on industrial and existing residents and amenities . It would also block sunlight on several residential buildings. Air Quality-Air quality in the area is known to be a concern. Additional vehicles would certainly have adverse impact to residents. Energy Use and Demand -Leisure World is comprised of all-electric residences and there have been numerous spot outages due to failures of the 60+ year old system structures. Vehicle charging stations in carports are currently being considered and their impact is yet unknown. The addition of a large multi-story building would significantly multiply those concerns . Land Use and Planning -Another multi-storied residential building with associated parking requirements was never anticipated . The added residents, utilities, vehicles, recreation needs, etc. will stress the ability of the current systems to deliver services and reduce the quality of life by limiting access to existing amenities. Noise -Leisure World is surrounded on all sides by either high volume/ noisy traffic or the power plant. In addition, the airplane landing pattern zone is directly overhead. The added multi-story building would amplify sound levels to nearby residents and subject residents of the new building to unacceptable noise levels without expensive noise attenuation measures. Population and Housing Constraints -The RV site is 5.5 acres. Using the assumed 150 units in the proposed multi stored building x 1.83 residents per unit assumes at least 275 more residents in Leisure World in addition to the 9,600 or so existing residents confined in a walled environment. Leisure World is already considered a high-density environment and any such development would be an additional burden. The quality of life for all residents would suffer in a very significant way. Traffic, use of amenities, recreation, congestion, the list of impacted services is endless. It is also assumed that the influx of non-resident traffic and people would increase existing levels of crime within our walls. Public Services -Leisure World is blessed to having a fire station outside of the North gate. It gives an assurance of a timely response in an emergency. It is used for resident response on a daily basis. However, since that fire station also responds to other cities in the area, it cannot be relied upon for a timely response. An additional multi-story 150-unit residential building in an already congested area would severely increase the risks to response time, as well as to response time for the police and Leisure World security. Emergency planning would need to consider the availability of fire trucks with ladders and labor intense demands when evacuating hundreds of elderly residents. Recreation -There is already limited greenspace and recreation opportunities within the walls. Removing the RV storage would immediately stress and eliminate access to an aged population access to their RV's and cause unknown adverse impacts to their timely access to recreational opportunities. Transportation -Traffic congestion, parking in carports, off-street parking near carports, and street parking already are a significant issue. There are only two streets with four lanes in Leisure World. The increased parking on the 2-laned streets will greatly narrow the space for the through traffic to pass. Additionally, traffic of other types of vehicles (golfcarts, bicycles, electric bikes, standup scooters, seated scooters, electric and regular wheelchairs, etc.) already happens on a regular basis due to the age of residents. These existing problems would increase in severity and frequency. Utilities and Service Systems -As mentioned previously, demand and maintenance needs to all utilities and associated service systems in Leisure World are at maximum capacity. An additional 150-unit multi-storied residential building is foolish and would have significant adverse consequences that can easily be predicted. In summary, I believe that the Housing Element "opportunity site" targeting the 5.5-acre site in Leisure World is not an "underutilized" site. It is a long standing and important amenity used by residents. Development of the site is also inconsistent with the Seal Beach Safety Plan. It would cause both anticipated and unanticipated adverse impacts to the quality of life to residents of Leisure World. Thank you, Anne S. Calvo Leisure World Resident 2 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subjed: Attachments: My comments are attached. Thank you. Schelly Sustarsic 4288 Candleberry Ave. Seal Beach {562) 431-3466 Schelly Sustarsic Friday, December 15, 2023 4:58 PM Alexa Smittle Comments for Zoning Code Scoping Period IMG_20231215_0001.pdf 1 December 15, 2023 To: Alexa Smittle, Director of Seal Beach Community Development Comments for Zoning Code Update Scoping Period: Regarding Programmatic EIR for Housing Element Aesthetics: Public views will be blocked, and Open Space removed. Glare can be a problem. Since housing sites 5, 6, and 10 are very near to a military runway and base, there should be a conversation with the JFTB to make sure that glare and lighting from the placement of housing units would not cause interference with their flight operations. Also, views of the adjacent base from the housing units may be considered a security issue for the JFTB. Biological Resources: There is a plan being developed to restore the former wetlands area now owned by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (former Hellman property) to wetlands. The Authority has recently received a large grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to begin the project. There is a tree preservation policy in Seal Beach -especially for Eucalyptus trees and groves. Energy Resources: Is the supply of energy adequate for all these housing units? Is adequate electrical infrastructure being planned and built to supply future electrically powered vehicles? Geology and Soils: This is very important to consider as a fault crosses the City of Seal Beach, and the surrounding area is mostly a liquefaction zone. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: A 34" high-pressure gas line runs along the north side of Lampson Avenue. This places a safety issue adjacent to site 10, in the event there is a leak or rupture of the gas line and the risks associated. Hydrology and Water Quality: Seal Beach has problems with flooding in both the Old Town area and part of College Park East. College Park East (CPE) drains onto the Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC), which is a county flood control basin. The addition of housing projects and hardscape in the area surrounding must be carefully studied to not add to, block or compete with CPE's drainage to the ORCC. Land Use and Planning: A stated goal in the Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element for Planning Area 4 (LU-43) is to "Discourage further encroachment onto the Los Alamitos JFTB flight path," This was written in 2003 after a development project by Bixby developed most of the open space north of 1-405. This included the Old Town Ranch Center, the Ayers Hotel and the adjacent shopping center, the Sunrise senior care facility, 78 housing units to the north and behind Target, and a remodel of the Old Ranch Country Club golf course. As part of the latter, a public driving range was built. As part of the Bixby development agreement, a development restriction was put in place to restrict zoning in Area C to recreation/golf/open space for 30 years, until 2029. I have included diagrams of the flight paths at the JFTB, taken from an "Environmental Assessment Stationing a U.S. Army Reserve Black Hawk Helicopter Company at Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, California" (March 2011). The EA was performed when additional Blackhawk helicopters were being added to some that were already on base. Flight paths are shown for both rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Aircraft at the JFTB are predominately helicopters, but there are fixed wing present, Including 4 Cessnas which have been added since 2011 and planes that fly daily as part of the Medfly Preventative Release Program. The departure path from the JFTB is curved, with aircraft departing from the military runways southwesterly over the Old Ranch golf course, turning to fly over the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station to the ocean. Approximately 8% of the time, this path is used as an approach during reverse conditions. Pilots are instructed not to overfly any residential area. The JFTB serves as an Emergency Operation center in times of natural disaster such as earthquakes, or riots, or an event such as a terrorist attack (both Federal and state emergencies). It is the only active military airport remaining in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. As such, a variety of other aircraft visit and/or train at the facility. Large, fully loaded aircraft, such as C-5 cargo planes, cannot make this turn in the flight path but must fly straight out from the runway on departure. I have attached a diagram of safety zones that were present when the base was known as the Armed Forces Reserve Center. The runway protection zones (APZ-1 and APZ-2) can be seen on the golf course. The safety zones were pulled onto base before Bixby developed its property, using Air Force criteria in the 1980s, apparently based on the airfield's accident history, or number of flights. The number of flights has increased since that time and when the AELUP was being updated by the Airport Land Use Commission in 2016-17, Caltrans Aeronautics urged the base to update its safety zones to agree with how the base was currently operating. This was not done, apparently due to a lack of funding to perform a needed AICUZ study, and the AELUP for the JFTB remained mostly unchanged. I was told that as of 2018, policy now requires that a military airfield follow the regulations of its own service -Army regulations for the JFTB, Los Alamitos. A military airport is adjacent to sites 5, 6, and 10. While most of the noise from the JFTB base is due to helicopter traffic, other aircraft fly in and out of the base. The noise contours in the AELUP are based on noise over a 24-hour period (CNEL) and the airfield generally does not operate at night. However, when jets depart the airfield, they produce noise of up to 140 decibels. Cargo planes are loud as well but contribute to annoyance, not necessarily inside the noise contours. Helicopters also push noise down, to the right, as they fly past. JUI ..,JI I W !_VJ /,lc...tlllll~J I\.JUIIU lll /~J,,Jt,JVl •UIA '-' : F n{ed \Nin9 Route Figure 3°3. JFTB Los Alamitos Flight Paths 3.2 2 Environmental Cunsequences Attachment# 2 EA for Stationing a USAR Bla ck Hawk Company at JFTB Los Alamitos. California March 20 11 In 1973 . the DoD implemented the Air Installation Compa t ible Use Zone {AICUZ) program to protect the health . safety. and welfa re of those living or working on or near mil i tary a ir installations by promoting compatible land use development on and off air installations The curren t A ICUZ study was pr epared by the CMRNG In 1994 to addr ess air craft operations at the Installation and provides la nd use guidance for the Installation The AICUZ progra m Is discussed In more detail 111 Secti on 3.14. Health and Human Safety L os Alamitos Army Airfield (LAAAF) Is one o f tr,e busiest DoD aviation operations 111 the contin ental Uni ted States . Located 1n one of the most cong ested and heavily flown airspace systems m the U S. th e JFTB's control tower Is one of th e most active in Sout hern Cal1forn1a (CAARN G 2007b). The JFTB Regulation 95-1 se ts forth the rules . regu l ation , and instruction for operatio n s at the a irfiel d (CAARNG. 2006). The Control Tower is open for oper a tions 15 hours daily Tuesday through Friday. 7 ·00am-10·00pm PST and eight hours daily Saturday thro ugh Monday 8 0Oam-4 ·00pm PST Airc raft will not be cleared for flight unless a flight plan has been completed and filed at LAAAF Opera tions Rotary wing traffic patterns and procedures are determined by several factors . i.e . the weather. the landing runway used by fixed wing aircraft. traffic. and noise abatement procedures (CMRNG. 2006) Established flight paths for rotary and fixed wing aircraft are shown 111 Figure 3-3 and 111 greater detail in the Helicopter P rocedu re Guide for JFTB Los Alamitos found 111 Appendix D Rotary Wing Route Fixed Wing Route Figure 3-3 . JFTB Los Alamitos Flight Paths 3. 2. 2 Environmental Consequences Alternati ve One Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no direct impact to land use on or surrounding the Installation The overall use of the Installation Is compatible with the unit's mission. JFTB Los USACE0910-03-00-0234 14 Ve rnadero Group Inc ~ ~• ABA TEMENl Los Alam,tos Army A,rt,eld (AAF ) ,s located 111 extreme p rox ,m,ty to several highly conce nt rated res1den t1al areas Los A la m,los AAF 111sututes a Noise A batement Program which incorporate s uniq ue traffic pa tt erns and arrival/departure pro- ' c edures T he program focuses on pilot education and coop- , e ra t,on which also benefit s the unmed,ote surround1119 res, dent,al communities of I os Alami tos Seal Beach Ga rden Grove and C ypress l>y I cctucIng th e adverse impact of ' noise dunny avIaII011 opr:r c1 t,on s Hel,cop te, aircrews part1cI pat1119 111 av ia ti on ope rations at Los Ala111,t os MF-are ex , peeled to know and a cJh e,e to the 110,se abaten,ent fli ght p,o , c edures Compliance with flight procedures ,s mandatory , unless dev1atIons are made necessary by weather ATC ,n : s tructIons an ,n -fligh t emergency or other safety cons,dera ' t,ons Repeat viola tors of noise abatement flight procedures may be res tricted or suspended from using th e a,rf,e ld The , goal of Joint Forces T1a1111ng Base ,s to maInta111 posn,ve re latronsh1ps w ith surro unding cornm u111 IIes so It ,s 1111perative par tIc1p ,1tI11g helir:opte:, ;11I uf>ws pers(J n ally dltP.rnpt lo ,educe the adverse Impa<.1 ol llt->licopte, no,se f ollow1119 the proce 1 clu,es 011t11n ed 111 th,s I lelicopte, P1 ot.e<11111:1s l,11I<.le acco,11 phs he~ th1!:i goal r o r q uesti ons ,egard,ng the t us Alamitos AA/ Nu,se Abate111ent Pr ogram contact tl1 1= I os Alaml!os ' AAF Ope,auons at t56?) 7% 2511 1-10!,!R~ OPERATION ATC Tower · S at -Mo n 0800-1600 I rue-Fn 0 700-2200 GCA • Mon 0800-1600 Tue T hu 0700-2200 Fn 1400 2200 Meld Op er a tion s Sa t M on 0730-1600 TL!e-Fn 0600 2200 Airfield WX Sat M on 0730-1600 I Tue-Fri 0600-2200 A irfiel d Serv ic es (JP 8) Sat-M on 0800 1530 Tue-F n 0700 -2130 h ~lie 1pter Traffic Patt~rn 700 ft MSL -Trame pa ttern Is Hel icopters will normally operate from runways 22L 1 South;,. •v / D parture vr-R ; • ARRIVAL: The Sou th A11 1va l procedu,e begins at A I heIm Bay a l the bou ndary of KSLI Class D airspace 22R based on predominate winds and use traffic pal-' • From Anaheim Ba y at 1000 ft MSL proceed d irect, term; as depicted on the above a1rf,e ld diagram dep,ctecJ Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (N\IVSSB ) to O 111 this He licopter Procedure s Gu,cl e P1loIs will operate airc ra ft ,n surh fl manner that no,se 111 ' Ranch Coun try Club 19ol f course) Descend to 700 MSL and ente r le ft downwind fo, RWYs 22L / 22R c c eed direcl to RWYs 0 4R /04L th~ vrrI111Iy o f 1es1dt!nt1al ,11 eas th.-1 I s1 11rou11d the au f1eld will be 1111111111,zecl H elicopters w ,11 avo,<J over flight of noise sens,!lve a11~as wh 1c.h ,nclucle all 1es1dent1al areas and a,e shaded ,n ,ed By operating well Ins1de msta llauon bounda11es clunng traffi c partern opera11 ons as much as possibl e part,c,pat,ng hehcopters will a,d ,n mm,m,2I 119 the ad - verse noise impact upon res1dent1al are as 00 NOT OVERFLY ANY RESIDENTAL AREAS Dl=PAR I URE : I he South Departure procedu1e beg th e departure ends of RWYs 22 L 22 R tor downwu of RWYs 04R I 04 L) : • A t departure end o f RWYs 22 L / 22 R tu rn left towan Ranch Country Club (golf course) cllmbIng to 700 ft Do not overfly res1dent1al areas ,mmed,ately S / SW a,rf,eld boundary Proceed over golf cours e then o· NWSSB direct to Anaheim Bay Avoid ove, flight o dent,al areas Im111ed1ately west of NWSSB , Frequencies LOCATI ON KSII VHF li<P" .1.095 1?J 8', K::,l I ,NO r-Sl I !WI< AA FOP$ K<;[ I r.cA 126 200 1 ;,4 7'i0 ()( Al A~o le;,< !111 L • Ba,in Helo t Name AAAf Ops AAAF rAA I AAAF (Jury Otflf ,., LAAAF POL • ,i4 65 123 l' tAJ,/lf-Weatoe1 Otise,ver 25 OWS 1[)[)175 I, ARNG AASf OP::, jUSAR .A.S f OPS t UHF -; ' 1r7 gr( 2'">1 1',( 237 20G ;.>CJO f,0() + !H 12' Number N 84 £f'2 < ,s, t,,11r 5b2 l!;l', 2.',71 562 7<t';i 28 8 5u2 /9~ 21!hll 5H2 7{15 2149 56;! 7ll'i•25fi9 5:>0 228 t' 5\>8 562 79$ 20UG Sti2 795 ;/2:J:? 562 7£15 21 OtJ 111 FM 65050 1Uf'1be1SJ Norl h Arnv,11 /l)eparture VFR Arrlval -1500 ft MSL Ocparture-1500 ft MSL AR RIV Al sattne 6 5 ,., fr Ji;,n ,, p, eed outh ~ ng tile 605 ffel'!wdy' ta KJ:lh-:llrt 60~ 111lt"'fSt Or'h.:1 l F--cr.1 ,.. at la ~ r tcriu t1 n p ,<,: os A arnrt Re ~ Cou".e rt1fl\:1•' g O'J{:-:' f'ldu~tr131 arr.:'I be ... ,..et K.HOl 3 1 '1 Cet t !::i A ~ tonyJ b\'IOfc h..111111,9 rTu ... 1111ht!cJ hd~t-imd rnt1rt·iny 1~!.c.trnl lflf-oll out~Hlt ,10' our5., por :, for 22 :> ,.; o 1noo1• ea ""..,..w,nd !or 4 04R ;OT ov, , " mtJs mm._'11 ,:e!'; ,rt' r o ,~e.ist 0111<ff1et0 DEPARTURE Tt>c No !h L.'<!Pil'IL!f p,cx ,r1 •. , bc:11ns "'1 • wrt 1d 0< •ion of ~wv~ 'U 12R °' depa<1ur em of RV.."ts 4R 04l, "rorn at>;,mn •PP''Hch end ot 22, , .2,R pr(l ,,.,<J 11,J<th tow.i,o Cus1m sr.cc,.ng area DO NOT ,0,11, home, ""' (XJ 11e , n0<•rt nort'least rt. a ••·e d no c, ss,ng 1<c11e1~-. Awn, proceed ..... s1 efT\d rnng o.er nu stnifl a, .. a C!e:V,,e.-n K,11.-11., and Cerni , Av,mues to K i'eJla -,OS c,er "'''o hmDmg to •5\1011 MSL Proceea r>Of1 otc,,o 6C~ fu,•~~ay tu 605 91 mtH,c;.hdnge: r,:.•111d11 mg on~t of 1rflt-NHf DO NOT OVERFLY ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS Kutt:lh1 Arr i vaVOepartu, VFR Arrtval-1500 ft MSL Arrival 1500 ft MSL ARRI Jill Hie l(;;i1et1a ,\rn~a! ('l'0C<!dllft'. begins VIClflllV ot D,s nt,vlanIf P,Hk dt lhe t O!Ul<l,H) 111 u,e KSI I C.li!55 0 n11Spd <:P ;,ruu:eo Wf•!,I ➔I0llll ~ ,llPlla Avenue Al 15011 ft,el MSL to Knott Avenue tlllln uc~ctnu to 1000 lr•et MSL t V,1lk!f View Srrct!I Oes(.t!rtd l0 hl'li apr,rc,,1ct1 Jl111tlllP as l>::4u11e,, tol,tnd C,r P/\fHURf !he I': 11c11a Dtµ t ,.,,.., p, :cctu11· begms on downwino po111on of HWYs ,21 RV-ff~ 04f? 04 ) 2R wr <.h,-pamrre entl n l Prr>C'et,l to Va,'"lla Avellllt v~""> Vii,w 511eel llllt'fSt,(ltUn <,lIn1tnng to 150 te,!I MSI rti..,r, f•,,~t ,1Ior1y , ateil<l Ave• 1110 ,.,,, mg KSl I Cl,1<..s D a11sp,1 .- UO NOT overtly r;;s11I nllal nr~,,s 11ont1 ,md south nf ;;ippr1>,, end uf l21 22 DO NOT OVERFLY ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS Recreation: While the Housing Element proposes to add housing units, there is no requirement for additional recreation to be added. What can result is increased competition for the currently available recreation amenities, or possible loss of recreation for residents (Will the current Public Driving Range (golf) on Lampson be lost to the public as proposed housing is built?) Transportation: Development of housing units would likely interfere with circulation of traffic. Wherever new residents to Seal Beach would come from to live in new housing units, traffic and therefore VMT would increase on our local streets. Seal Beach has one north-south arterial and that is Seal Beach Blvd. Development of housing projects in our Housing Element, as well as from proposed developments in immediate adjacent cities (Long Beach, Los Alamitos) will add traffic to Pacific Coast Highway, Westminster Avenue and Lampson Avenue. These all intersect with Seal Beach Blvd and will add to its congestion. Lampson Avenue was not mentioned specifically in the Initial Study. It is a secondary arterial that is increasingly used as a bypass to the 1-405 freeway. The only ingress/egress for the residents of the College Park East neighborhood is via Lampson Avenue. The issues of access for emergency vehicles via Lampson Avenue as well as access as an evacuation route are extremely important to residents of College Park East as there is only one way in and out. Tribal Cultural: Tribal artifacts and remains have been found in Seal Beach and nearby, so great care should be exercised in any future developments Mandatory Findings of Significance: Consideration of the cumulative effects of many of these issues are extremely important, as development across surrounding communities will act to compound these issues. In the Seal Beach Housing Element, 866 of the housing opportunity sites are in sites 5, 6, and 10. This amounts to 47% of the total submitted to HCD concentrated north of the 1-405 freeway. It is a substantial number to be proposed within a few hundred feet of the intersection of Seal Beach Blvd and Lampson Avenue. If you also consider a proposed development in the City of Los Alamitos which would add 246 housing sites at 4665 Lampson, 1.5 miles east of Seal Beach Blvd, that totals 1,112 housing sites very near the same intersection. There is also housing development in the City of Long Beach, just across the Seal Beach city limit which could add a substantial amount of traffic to Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach. All these cumulative effects must be considered regarding traffic circulation, public safety, public services, air quality, Sincerely, Schelly Sustarsic 4288 Candleberry Avenue, Seal Beach Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Alexa, Theresa Miller <tmiller3boys@gmail.com> Friday, December 15, 2023 4:45 PM Alexa Smittle Comments on the Umbrella EIR Thank you for holding the meeting last week-it was interesting and quite a bit of information to digest in one night. I am so happy that we have a competent Environmental Commission, which has pointed out several areas of concern. I agree with all of the concerns discussed in that meeting, brought up by the Environmental Commission. I look forward to seeing the revised EIR and, hopefully, the walk-through with the consultants. Thank you again, Theresa Miller 1 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Cc : Subject: Attachments: Good Morn i ng Alexa, CEQAReview <ceqa re view@dtsc.ca.gov> Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:02 AM Alexa Sm itt le; Office of Planning and Research -State Clearinghouse Kereazis, Dave@DTSC; Wiley, Scott@DTSC DT SC Comments -City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project DTSC Comment s -City of Sea l Beach Housing Element.pdf Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Toxic Substances Control to review and comment on the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project. Attached you will find DTSC's comments for cons id eration. If you have any questions or comments, p lease reply to this emai l for gui dance. Tha n k you, Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP 916 255-3857 Tamara.Purvis@dtsc.ca .gov Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency DTSC ~ D•P•••m•nt of Toxic ~ Substances Contro l ~CalEPA l ""'""-~ Ga!ilornia Environmental ,..., Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control Yana Garcia Secretary for En vironmental Protection Meredith Williams, Ph.D., Director 8800 Cal Cente r Dri ve Sacramento, California 95826-3200 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL December 14 , 2023 Alexa Smittle Community Development Director City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , CA 90740 ASmittle@sealbeachca .gov Gavin Newsom Governor RE : NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT, DATED NOVEMBER 16 , 2023 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE# 2023110425 Dear Alexa Smittle , The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a NOP of a DEIR for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project. The Initial Study was prepared to analyze potential impacts related to implementation of the City's Housing Element and Zoning Code Update . The Housing Element identifies 13 Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation . The sites are broken into two categories : (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites , six would require rezoning , one would be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan , and one would require an amendment to the Main Alexa Smittle December 14, 2023 Page2 Street Specific Plan. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation , Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHO), which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. This new zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state's RHNA allocation for the City and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. Implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update would result in the City being able to accommodate 1,833 additional housing units pursuant to the City's RHNA allocation . DTSC has identified that this project may affect multiple sites within the project boundaries therefore, based on our project review , we request the consideration of the following comments: 1. The proposed project encompasses multiple active and nonactive mitigation and clean-up sites where DTSC has conducted oversight that may be impacted as a result of this project. This may restrict what construction activities are permissible in the proposed project areas in order to avoid any impacts to human health and the environment. 2 . Due to the broad scope of the project, DTSC is unable to determine all of the locations of the proposed project site , whether they are listed as having documented contamination , land use restrictions, or whether there is the potential for the project site to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 .5. DTSC recommends providing further information on the project site and areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight w ithin the project area. Please review the City of Seal Beach project area in EnviroStor; DTSC 's public-facing database. DTSC believes the City of Seal Beach must address these comments to determine if any significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur and , if necessary, avoid significant impacts under CEQA. DTSC recommends the department connect with our unit if any hazardous waste projects managed or overseen by DTSC are discovered . Alexa Smittle December 14, 2023 Page3 DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California 's people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC's comments , please respond to this letter or via ema il for additional guidance . Sincerely, Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Tamara .Purvis@dtsc.ca .gov Alexa Smittle December 14, 2023 Page4 cc: (via email) Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State .Clearinghouse@opr .ca .gov Dave Kereazis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP -Pe rmitting Division -CEQA Unit Department of Tox ic Substances Control Dave . Kereazis@dtsc .ca . gov Scott Wiley Associate Government al Program Analyst HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Un it Department of Toxic Substances Control Scott.Wiley@dtsc .ca .gov Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Kurt Bourhenne < kbourhenne@aol.com> Monday, December 11, 2023 3:25 PM Alexa Smittle HOUSING TO REPLLACE THE LEISURE WORLD RV LOT 1 The above picture shows what appears to be a city employee taking pictures at Knollwood Rd. & El Dorado@ 1 :41 p.m., as evidenced by the picture below. 2 The shadows shown at 1 :41 p.m. represents indisputable prove that if a multi-story building were to be built on the RV Lot in Seal Beach Leisure World, the dwelling units on the East side would be permanently deprived of late afternoon sunlight and completely devoid of evening sunlight. Sunlight = Vitamin "D" 3 FACT: All building structures, including Club Houses, Medical buildings, Security buildings, Postal building, the Globe and Amphitheater were specifically constructed so they would not deprive residents of sunlight. Knowing this factual information and purposely building a structure that would permanently deprive human beings of their afternoon and evening sunlight are more than likely blood relatives of the commanders at Auschwitz and the like. This is my opinion on the subject! Kurt Bourhenne Leisure World, Mutual 14 Seal Beach, California 90740 NOTHING IN THIS EMAIL IS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY, FORWARD OR DISTRIBUTE AS YOU FEEL THE NEED ARISES! 4 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subjed: Alexa Smittle Aaron Groseclose< 1aarongroseclose1@gmail.com> Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:54 PM Alexa Smittle Leisure World RV Club Community Development Director City of Seal Beach Dear Ms. Smittle, We are writing to you following the request for comments on the proposed development of low-income housing on the RV Club site in Leisure World. We are second generation Leisure World owners and have enjoyed the RV Club as our parents did starting in 1974. This Club is a major reason we can afford to own an RV. So, we are concerned this key amenity for living in Seal Beach will be taken from us. Not only does it provide community life, but it is a source of income for the Golden Rain Foundation. So, we are opposed to losing the facility for additional housing in our densely populated community. We understand the State of California is looking to provide new housing, but it is unfortunately putting this burden on local communities. However, under Article 34 of the State Constitution we as residents of Leisure World should be allowed a public vote -not a committee to decide this issue. We believe Leisure World is already a low-income community based on surrounding housing costs. If the City of Seal Beach is so concerned about providing low-income housing why was the old Edison property not developed as low- income housing rather than as a park? Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Aaron & Barbara Groseclose Mutual 4-87C 1 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: 12/12/2023 asmittle@sea l beac h ca.gov Alan Hunter <c hroni cpain @doctor.com > Tuesda y, December 12, 2023 5:26 PM Alexa Smittle Le isu re World RV Lot Please do not change anything regarding the Leisure World RV Lot . Including any rezon i ng or other reclassifications. have lived in Leisure World for 10 years and always parked my RV in the lot. If I am forced to move my RV to a commercial lot, which will be many times more expensive, I will be forced to lose my beloved recreation vehicle because I am on a fixed income and cannot afford extra expenses. Alan Hunter 1422 Merion Way Apt 59G Seal Beach CA 90740 l Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Alexa Smittle, Bert van der Veer <dutchbert1@yahoo.com> Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:01 AM Alexa Smittle Leisure World RV lot As a resident of Leisure World Mutual 8 unit 190F My parents in Mutual 15 both 91 and my mother now in Hospice Care I am 68 own and have a RV in the Leisure World RV lot. That's one of the reasons a lot of people buy here because of the promised ementaties. Then you spend over $100K to remodel your home which they should maintain since they keep telling us we don't own the unit but yet your paying to rebuild the whole unit. Then over the years you learn about all the policies and now after years you have no other choices being old and are now being told that you may lose your RV parking spot. This to seniors who came here and bought big motorhomes at high prices is not right to now be told that the RV lot may be sold off to build houses there. I am sure out of the 270 or more residents that have a RV there that there will be people talking to their lawyers if this happens. I believe there are plenty of empty fields in Seal Beach 5 acres or more where they can build nice homes. Leisure World is pretty packed as it is traffic parking is already pretty full. So please do us a favor and re-think any notion if possible of taking away our RV lot. These are the things that made Leisure World attractive. Most residents could not afford to store the RV's outside at a storage location plus to far away in most cases. Thank you kindly for taking the time to read my email, hope you and your department have a great holiday may next year be better in our beautiful little Seal Beach California City. Sincerely Bert van der Veer 1 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Alexa Smittle Lori Gray <lorigray920@aol.com > Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:39 PM Alexa Smittle Leisure World Rv Lot I want to acfirm the notion that LW Shareholders do not want this property sold. It was promised as an amenity. It would cause a total disruption here for the Shareholders if new housing occurred of this volume. There are many other city spots for you to declare. The GRF Board can sell it without our authorization for more housing. It would take a vote by all of the shareholders to change our current GRF bylaws . This idea is not realistic. GRF can't handle the maintenance for the units they already have. We have huge pipping problems here now. Nathan Steele and Nick Massetti do not represent the Shareholders in this planning element. Massetti has a conflict of interest here as a voting GRF Member and should not be on this planning committee. Thank you Lori Gray NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 - 252 1, and is confidential and is legally privileged. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The information contained in this e-mail and attached document(s) may contain confidential information that is intended only for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in r eli ance upon the information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system . Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Alexa: Catherine Showalter <clshowalter@roadrunner.com> Thursday, December 7, 2023 10:49 PM Alexa Smittle Jill Ingram; Schelly Sustarsic; Shaun Temple PLEASE USE THIS VERSION FW: Comments on Initial Study for Draft EIR: Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Comments on Initial Study_Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Initial Study_ Dec 6 2023.docx High Follow up Flagged Attached you will find my comments on the Initial Study for the Draft EIR: Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates. 1 realize this is the first step in a very long process and I look forward to participating as it moves forward. At last night's EQCB Meeting and Public Workshop, I shared most of the comments that are listed on the first page of the attached. However, I did not mention Policy 4A in regards to the City performance standard of an average total response time for fires. Please be sure to take note of it as I believe "reflect time" is an error and should be corrected in the City's Policy documents. Policy 4E and Policy 4F also have grammatical errors. You will find them all mentioned on page 7 of the attached material. Even though a comment was made at the end of last night's meeting about how well the Initial Study was written by the consultant team, I do not agree. 1 found at least 45 grammatical and spelling errors as I read the report in detail and examined the tables. Technically, the report included all of the categories that will be further addressed but I hope the mistakes and oversights are corrected before we see the next version. Someone at Stantec needs to take responsibility for proof reading the document before submitting it to City staff for public review. Errors are distracting for the reader and time consuming for staff to edit and revise before public meetings take place. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate all you do for our community of Seal Beach and hope you will enjoy the holiday season with loved ones in ways that mean the most to you. Respectfully, Catherine Showalter EQCB Member, District Four City of Sea I Beach 1 COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting Catherine Showalter, EQCB Member, District Four December 6, 2023 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study. I appreciate the Glossary of Terms Add RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board Add GWP: Global Warming Potential In describing Site 10 -Old Ranch Club (pg. 2-15) It states that "A new development agreement between the developer and the property owner is expected to be a part of the development application that will ultimately be considered by the City." Explain why. Include that the current development agreement specifies no development through 2029. San Bernardino is misspelled throughout the document. (pg. 3-10, 3-37, 3-63) 3.3.1 Air Quality, Environmental Setting (pg. 3-10) Why is the 2016 AQMP being used as a resource? AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022. This is an important section; very little is included at this point; needs to be expanded. 3.15.1 Other Public Facilities, Environmental Setting Libraries (pg. 3-54) 3.20.1 Wildfire, Environmental Setting (pg. 3-70) Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less. I believe it should be response time, not reflect time. 3.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance, Environmental Impact Analysis (pg. 3-75) Will the "cumulative considerable" list of related projects or growth projections developed for the EIR include the West Ed development site on Lampson Avenue across from College Park East and down the road from Old Ranch? 1 SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS FOR GRAMMATICAL ERRORS Offered by Catherine Showalter Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Cover Page Project Location, second sentence: "The City~ located ... " Add the word "is." PROJECT OVERVIEW, Second page, Background bullet point: "Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; po ss ibl e, remove governmental con straints ... " Replace se mi colon w ith comma after word "poss ibl e." Initial Study Page 2-3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT First paragraph , first sentence: "SCAG ha s allocated ... through the adopted +t-s 6th cycle ... " Del ete word "it s." First paragraph, second sentence: "Th e RHNA repre sents ... must accommodate fef in i ts ... " Del ete w ord "for ." Page. 2-16 2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site De sc riptions (pg. 2-16) Site 13 Location: "The Main Street Specific Plan area covers +s the traditional downtown ... " Delete word "is". Site 13 Assumed Development Capacity: Mid paragraph , "A physic al in ven tory ... standard of ... " The wo rd "of " should not be in bold . Site 13 Assumed Development Capacity: Last se ntence, "At these small sizes, ... therefore, A-a-ve income level s have been categorized ... " Delete "hav e." Page 2-18 2 .3.4 Hou si ng Opportunity Sites Paragraph under table, la st se ntence, "the Housing Element Update include include s su fficient sites ... " Replace w o rd "include" with "i nclud es." Page 3-4 AESTHETICS Table item c), la st sentence: "If the Project is in an urbanized area, is th ere th€ potential sf for the project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?" Repla ce with, "i s the r e pot ential for th e proj ect t o conflict ... " and d el et e "th e." Page 3-5 3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Paragraph a) second sentence : "nor are there any specific policie s related to preservation ... " 2 Catherine Showalter Add word "to." Paragraph cl, last sentence, "If the project is in an urbanized area, is there t-Re potential of the project to conflict with applicable zoning ... " Add "is there" and delete "the." Page 3-6 First paragraph, second sentence " ... infra structure which may have the have the potential. .. " Delete "th e ha ve." Page 3-6 d) first paragraph, second sentence " ... on structures and even off e.f vehicle windshield s, ... " Delete word "of." Page 3-6 d) second para graph , first senten ce " ... would be required to comply with City guidelines ... " Ad d w ord "with." Page 3-8 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysi s b) second paragraph , fifth sentence "Additionally, non e of th e identified Hou sin g Opportunity Sites that +s are not proposed ... " Rep lace "is" w ith "ar e ." Page 3-10 AIR QUALITY 3.3.1 Environmental Setting First paragraph," ... and San Bernadina Be rnardino Counties." Replace Bernadina with Bernardino . Page 3-13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) First paragraph under Finding, second se ntence, "Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification of biological re sources ... " Add word "of." Page 3-15 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analy sis f) Paragraph under Finding, second sentence, "Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification of biological re sources ... " Add word "of." 3 Catherine Showalter Page 3-21 ENERGY RESOURCES 3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis b) Second paragraph under Finding, first sentence, " ... comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards ... " Ad d word "of." Page 3-29 GREENHOUSE GASES 3.8.1 Environmental Setting First paragraph , third sentence, "Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heart in the atmosphere~ GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent, which weight weigh each gas by its global warming potential." Add period to end run-on sente nce. Replace word "we i ght" w ith "weigh." First paragraph, last sentence, "Ad ditional GHGs with high Global Warming Potential (GWP) include ... " Add "G loba l Warming Potential" since this is the first time the term ha s been use d in the report. Page 3-30 3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) paragraph und er Finding, third se ntence, "As such, greenhouse gas emissions re sulting from future Project implementation~ may have a significant impact on the environment." Delete "that." b) paragraph under Finding, first sentence, "The project identifies Housing Opportunity Sites that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's RHNA allocation0 " Add a period to end sentence . Page 3-32 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Policy 2B: "Implement the measure~ outline outlined in th e City's Hou se hold Hazardou s Waste Plan." Replace word "outlin e" w ith "outlin ed." Page 3-33 3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) first paragraph under Finding, first sentence, "Construction activities associated with future residential development resulting from Project implementation i-5 are anticipated to involve ... " Delete word "is" and add "a re ." 4 Catherine Showalter a) second paragraph under Finding, second se ntence, "Upon completion of constructionL hazardous materi als associated with Project operations would include ... " Add comma. Page 3-36 g) paragraph under Finding, first se ntence, "The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in ... " Delete "located" as redundant. Page 3-37 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.10.1 Environmental Setting First paragraph, first se ntence, San Bernadina Bernardino. Replace "Bernadino" with correct spelling of "Bernardino." Page 3-38 Policy 25, last line, " ... maximize the percentage of permeabl e surfaces to aUews allow more percolation of storm water into the ground." Replace word "allows" with "allow." Page 3-39 First para graph , last se ntence," ... construction activities associated With future residential development ... " Add word "with." Page 3-41 ii., paragraph under Finding, second sentence, Though the Project may not result in substa ntial increased increases in imperviou s surfaces ... " Replace word "increa sed" with "increase s." iii, "C reate or contribute runoff water would exceed the capacity of ... runoff7 0 ef11 Replace semi colon with p eriod; d elete word "or." Page 3-42 iv. paragraph under Finding, first se ntence, " ... produced by storms av at sea ... " Replace "ay" with "at." iv. paragraph under Finding, sixt h sentence, " ... the Project may be located in area s susceptible to floodingL and implementation of the Project could impede or redirect flood flows." Add comma for clarity. Page 3-45 LAND USE AND PLANNING b), paragraph under Finding, seco nd to the last sentence, " ... regulation adopted for the purpose 5 Catherine Showalter of avoiding or mitigation mitigating an environmental effect." Replace word "mitigation" with "mitigating." Page 3-46 MINERAL RESOURCES 3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis Paragraph under a-b) Finding, second to the last sentence," ... impacts associated with the loss of availability ... " Add w ord "of." Page 3-48 NOISE 3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysi s b) "Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noi se levels?" Add word s "result in ." Page 3-52 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a), last paragraph , last sentence, "Therefore, this topic will be further evaluation ev alu at ed i n the EIR." Replace word "evaluation" w ith "evalu ated ." Page 3-54 PUBLIC SERVICES Policy 4A : "Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personne l are maintained ba sed on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect re sponse time of seven minutes or less." Replace word "reflect" with "re spon se." Page 3-63 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.18.1 Environmental Setting Third sentence, "The Gabrielinos were in an area that expended from Ventura County to the north and San Bernadina Bernardino County to the east." Repl ace "Bernadina" with "B ernardino ." Page 3-64 a) ii, last sentence, " ... the lead agency shall con sider the significance of the r esource to a California Native American mbe-?-tribe." Re pla ce qu es tion m ark with a period . 6 Page 3-65 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.19 Environmental Setting Water First paragraph, "The City ~ a retail w ater supplier ... " A dd th e w ord "i s." Page 3-66 Wastewater Catherine Showalter Second paragraph , last sentence, "In 2020, 2,520 AF of wastewater wa s collect coll ected from the City {City of Seal Beach 2021)." Repl ace w ord "collect" with "colle ct ed ." Page 3-67 3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysi s c) Would the project result i n a d et ermination by the wa stewater treatm ent provider which serv es or may serve the project that ¼5 l! ha s adequate capacity ... " Repla ce word "i s" with "it." Page 3-70 WILDFIRE 3.20.1 Environmental Setting First para gr aph , first sentence, "Th e City and Project area arc surrounding surrounded by urb an and deve loped land s." Replac e w ord "surrounding" with "s urround ed ." Second paragraph , second sentence, " ... much of the City ha s be en identifie d as Ra-Ye having a low risk for wildfire." Repl ac e word "ha ve" with "ha vin g." Page 3-71 Policy 4A: "Ensure that adequate faciliti es and fire service personnel are maintained ba sed on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performan ce standard of an average total refl ec t r es pon se time of seven minutes or le ss." Repla ce word "r efl ec t " w ith "r es pon se." Policy 4E: "Develop aflG an early warning system of Santa Ana wind fire danger ... " Repla ce word "and " with "an." Policy 4F : " ... require private responsibility for development and mainte nance necessary of new fire flow water lines ... " Add w o rd "of." 7 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Subject: Adrianne Rosenfeld <arosenfeld1 @verizon.net> Monday, December 11 , 2023 3:50 PM Kurt Bourhenne; Alexa Smittle Re: HOU SING TO REPLLA CE THE LEISURE WORLD RV LOT You're wrong and offensive No one is going to build housing in Leisure World. This is a 55 and older community. If they build housing, they wanted for families not for seniors and that a remark about Auschwitz was way out of line especially from a person that is going to vote for a fascist. Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS On Monday, December 11, 2023, 3 :24 PM, Kurt Bourhenne <kbourhenne@aol.com> wrote: The above picture shows what appears to be a city employee taking pictures at Knollwood Rd. & El Dorado @ 1 :41 p .m ., as evidenced by the picture below. 2 The shadows shown at 1 :41 p .m. represents indisputable prove that if a multi-story building were to be built on the RV Lot in Seal Beach Leisure World, the dwelling units on the East side would be permanently deprived of late 3 afternoon sunlight and completely devoid of evening sunlight. Sunlight = Vitamin "D" FACT: All building structures, including Club Houses, Medical buildings, Security buildings, Postal building, the Globe and Amphitheater were specifically constructed so they would not deprive residents of sunlight. Knowing this factual information and purposely building a structure that would permanently deprive human beings of their afternoon and evening sunlight are more than likely blood relatives of the commanders at Auschwitz and the like. This is my opinion on the subject! Kurt Bourhenne Leisure World, Mutual 14 Seal Beach, California 90740 NOTHING IN THIS EMAIL IS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY, FORWARD OR DISTRIBUTE AS YOU FEEL THE NEED ARISES! 4 Megan Coats From: Sent: To: Cc: Subjed: Attachments: Hi Alexa, Susan Perrell <susan@outdoorsynergy.net> Thursday, December 7, 2023 6:27 PM Alexa Smittle Shaun Temple Comments on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Initial Study and EIR Scope Comments_Susan Perrell Comments.docx Thank you and Shawn for putting together a very cordial and successful meeting last night, and for guiding us newbie EQCB members through the meeting process. Attached are my comments on the EIR scope ... some of which I talked through last night. I am hoping my comments will be helpful, and that this written version will be more coherent and easier to address than my oral comments last night I I apologize in advance that I am a terrible speller and I could not get Word to spell check the "Comments" in the document. Perhaps my typos and mis-spellings will come out on the wash I Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or if I can help in any way. I am looking forward to working with you and Shawn throughout this process. Best, Susan Susan Perrell 562 2331574 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, 06 December 2023 -6:00 PM City Council Chambers 21 1 Eigh th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 District 1 -Gary Allen Distri ct 2 -Benjamin Wong District 3 -Susan M. Perrell Dist rict 4 -Catherine Showalter District 5 -Donald Horning Department of Community Development Alexa Smittle , Di rector Shaun Temple , Planning Manager • City Hall office hours are 8:00 a . m. to 5:00 p. m. Monday through Friday. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m. ■ The City of Seal Beach complies w ith the Americans w ith Disabil ities Act. If you need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk' s Office at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (562 ) 43 1-2527. • Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each age nda item are available for pub lic inspection in City libraries or on the City website at: http ://sealbeachca.suiteonemedia.com/web/home .aspx CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Environmental Quality Control Board regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Environmental Quality Control Board. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Board cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law. Those members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come foiward to the microphone and state their name for the record. All speakers will be limited to a period of 5 minutes. APPROVALOFAGENDA By Motion of the Environmental Quality Control Board, this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda, re-arrange the order of the agenda, and provide an opportunity for any member of the Environmental Quality Control Board or staff to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. SCHEDULED MATTERS A. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting for the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update Recommendation: Staff to receive input and comments from the public to help identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR for the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update. STAFF CONCERNS BOARD CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT TO : FROM: MEETING DATE : SUBJECT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD STAFF REPORT Environmental Quality Control Board Alexa Smittle , Community Development Director December 6, 2023 Scoping Meeting to solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update (Project). Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Quality Control Board conduct a public meeting, receive public comments and provide comments to Staff for preparation of the EIR. BACKGROUND Pursuant to State Law, the City of Seal Beach (City) must update its Housing Element every eight years. A key component of the Housing Element is the identification of sites that are suitable to accommodate new housing un its. Under State law, j urisdictions must maintain an inventory of potential housing sites commensurate w ith their Reg iona l Housing Needs Assessment (R HNA) allocation. For the 2021 -2029 cycle , the City of Seal Beach (City) has been assigned a total of 1,243 units. With in the C ity 's Housing Element Update , several sites are identified as housing opportunity sites , but not all of them are currently zoned to accommodate housing . As a part of the Housing Element work program , the Zoning Code must be updated to allow for housing development at the identified sites. As such , the City is preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update (Project). Based on th e Initial Study performed for the Project , staff has determined that an EIR inclusive of all environmental topics except for Agriculture & Forestry, Mineral Resources , and Wildfire must be completed under the California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA). As a part of that process, a month-long scoping period is provided to allow the f'Zomment ed [S P1 ]: I agree with th e seleC1ion of 7 I .;;tegories to be eliminated from stud y in the EIR . However, for some of the categories that will be induded In the EIR, the justification for indudi ng them I was too narrow , and I am concerned that, as a resull, th e EI R studi es may be focused too narrowly. Potential impacts to environmental. historical, and cultural resources and publlc services should be more deeply and more broadly studied in th e EIR than th is i nitial study suggests. Environmental Quality Control Board December 6, 2023 commun ity and interested parties time to rev iew initial information about the Proj ect and provide feedback on the scope and content of the EIR . Comments may be submitted v ia delivery, mail, o r email to the City anytime during the scoping period , in t his case , from November 16, 2023 to December 15 , 2023 . Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources Code , in preparation of an EIR, a scoping meeting will be held for the general p ublic and responsible and trustee public agencies. Tonight's meeting, hosted by the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), provides opportunity for public participation using an in-person setting that will be re corded for reference and incorporation into the scop ing process. Those attending will learn about the Project, rev iew the anticipated scope of the EIR, and assist the City in identifying the range of actions , alternatives, mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. It is important to note that no decision or recommendation is being made by the EQCB at this meeting. The In itia l Study/Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmenta l Impact Report and the Notice of Scoping Meeting are available for public review at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departme nts/Community-Development/Plan n ing - Development/Environmental-Documents-Unde r-Review and are also attached to this staff report . Written comments must be submitted prior to 5:00 P.M. Fri day, December 15, 2023 to : Alexa Smittle, Community De velopment Director C ity of Seal Beach, Community Development 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , California 90740 asmittle@sealbeachca .gov 562.431 .2527 ext. 1313 Following the close of the scoping perio d, research , analysis , and technical stud ies will be performed , and the Program EIR drafted for public review, ideally by late Spring 2024. A 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR will be provided, after which responses to comments receive d will be prepared . The EIR wi ll be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board as well as the Planning Commission, and ultimately broug ht to the City Counc il for consideration . AL,e,,w.,SW'vi,,ffu, Alexa Sm ittle Community Deve lopment Director Attachments: 1. Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) 2 . Notice of Scoping Meeting Commented [SP2 J: While the EIR Is currenUy intended to be programmatic rather than project-specific, each of the 10 sites to be rezoned are very different; different settings, different environmental. historical, and recreational resources. and different environmental issues and challenges . Therefore. in order to make the EIR a adequately complel e and mean ingful assessment that can serve to support sound decisions for EIR certification and subsequent discretionary decisions. the resources. impacts, mitigation, a nd Issues at each sit e w ill need to be assessed site- specifically. Even if the individual development sites will later go through a CEQA process prior to receiving entitlements, the zoning changes for those project sites will already have been decided and made, based on the ea~ier Programmatic EIR. Furthermore, those environmental resources and issues that were never identified or studied in the high level Programmatic EIR I may never be identified or studied later bu t , instead. administratively dismissed with a negative declaration or a mitigated negative dedaration. To prevent that potential study gap. the sites should be studied in depth. preferably via separate EIRs or possibly through robust site-specific stud ies rolled up into the Programmati c EIR. Following that p rocess, a consistency review and/or update or each specific EIR should occur when an actual project is proposed for that site. ----- PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Notice is hereby given by the Community Development Department of the City of Seal Beach that a Notice of Preparation of a Draft En vironmental Impact Report (E IR) has been prepared for the Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project. The Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) will be available for public revi ew and comment for 30 days commencing Thursday , November 16, 2023, and ending Frid ay , December 15, 2023. T he NOP includes a description of the Project , and the IS includes a d iscu ssion of the environmental topics. The C it y of Sea l Beach is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR . Project Location : City of Seal Beach , including 13 opportunity sites throughout the city totaling approximately 278 acres . Project Description : The Project is the City's Ho using Element Update and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program . The Housing Element Upd ate identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city that have the potential for provid ing additiona l ho us ing to meet th e City's Re gional Ho using Needs A ll ocation (R HNA). The sites are broken into two categories : (a) undenutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites wh ere zon ing modifications are proposed because the current capacity of these underutilized s it es is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA in all income categories . Public Review and Comment Period: A 30-d a y public review period for comments on the scope of the EIR starts on Thursday , November 16, 2023, and ends on Friday , December 15, 2023 at 5:00 P.M. Please send your comment, with you r name and address , to : A lexa Smittle, Community Development Director, City of Seal Beach, Community Deve lo pment Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach , CA 90740 or via e-ma il to: asmittle@sealbeachca.gov. To further facilitate public participation , a public meeting will be held on December 6 , 2023 at 6 p.m. in City Council Chambers located at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA. A copy of the IS/NOP describing the Project and potential environmental effects is available at the following locations : • Orange County Public Library , Seal Beach Branch , 707 Electric Ave nue, Seal Beach , CA 90740 • Orange County Public Library , Los Alamitos-Rossmoor Branch, 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach, CA 907 40 • The City's website : https://www.sea lbeachca .gov/Departments/Commun ity- DevelopmenUPlanning-DevelopmenUEnvironmental-Documents-Under-Review. PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Scopin g Meeting: Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources Code , a scoping meeting will be held for the general public and responsible and trustee public agencies. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to learn about the Project , review the anticipated scope of the EIR, and assist the City in identify ing the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. Scoping Meeting Date Wednesday , December 6, 2023 Scoping Meeting Time 6:00 P.M. Scoping Meeting Location City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , California 90740 Project Location : City of Seal Beach , includ ing 13 opportunity sites throughout the city totaling approximately 278 acres. Project Description : The Project is the City's Housing Element Update and its resulting zon ing code update and rezoning program . The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Reg ional Housing Needs Allocation (R HNA). The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed because the current capacity of these underutil ized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA in all income categories. Public Review and Comm ent Period : A Separate Notice of Availab ility of an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the C ity of Seal Beach Housing Element was published on November 16 , 2023 announcing a 30- day public rev iew period for comments on the scope of the EIR starting on Th ursday , November 16, 2023, and endi ng on Friday , Dece mber 15, 2023 at 5:00 P.M. The NOP includes a description of the Project, and the IS includes a discussion of the environmental topics. The City of Seal Beach is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. Please send your comment , with your name and address , to: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, City of Seal Beach , Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach , CA 907 40 or via e-mail to : asmittle@sea lbeachca.gov. A copy of the IS/NOP describing the Project and potential environmental effects is available at the following locations: • Orange County Public Library , Sea l Beach Branch, 707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach , CA 90740 • Orange County Public Library , Los Alamitos-Rossmoor Branch , 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach , CA 90740 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMU NITY DEVELOPMENT • The City's website: https://www.sealbeachca.g ov/Departments/Community- DevelopmenUPlanning-DevelopmenUEnvironmental-Documents-Under-Rev iew. Notice of Preparation And Scoping Meeting for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Environmental Impact Report DATE: November 16, 2023 TO : Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties FROM: City of Seal Beach, Commu nity Deve lopment Department, 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , California 90740 PROJECT TITLE/SUBJECT : City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project-Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Seal Beach NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD : November 16, 2023-December 15, 2023 SCOPING MEETING: December 6, 2023 The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to notify potential Responsible Agencies (Agencies) that the Lead Agency , the City of Seal Beach (Ci ty), will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) and to solicit comments and suggestions regarding (1) the scope and content of the EIR and (2) the environme ntal issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR (Californ ia Environmen tal Quality Act [CEQAJ Guidelines Section 15082). This NOP also provides notice to interested parties , organizations , and individuals of the preparation of the EIR and requests comments on the scope and contents of the environmental document. Project Loca tion : The Project sit e is currently comprised of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed thro ughout the City totaling approximately 278 acres. The City located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east , Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles. PROJECT OVERVIEW In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584 , projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (S CAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA ). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30 , 2021 , to October 15, 2029 . The Housing Element is one of the seven state -mandated elements of a local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years. Th e City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and pro jected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensi ve strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housin g cycle . Background : An Initial Study was prepared for the City to eval uate potential environmenta l impacts resulting from the implementa tion of the City's recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7, 2022 , but updated on August 24 , 2023 in response to HCD comments , and identifies the City's housing condit ion s and needs and estab lishes the policies and programs that comprise the City's strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the prov ision of adeq uate housing for lower-in come households and for special-needs populations (i.e., unhoused peop le, seniors , single-parent households, large families , and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to have the Housing Element Update certified and obtain compliance , as the Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan . The Housing Element Update wou ld bring the element into comp liance with state legislation and the current SCAG RHNA. The Housing Element Update includes the following components , as required by state law: • An analysis of the City's demograph ic and housing characteristics and trends ; • An evaluation of land, financia l, and administrative resources available to address the City's housing goals; • A rev iew of potential constraints, both governmenta l and non-governmental, to meet the City's housing needs; and • A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 plann ing period , including goa ls po licies and programs . The Housing Element Update identifies th e following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: • Facilitate the developmen t of a va ri ety of housing types for all income-leve ls to meet the existing and future needs of residents; • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households; • Address and , where appropriate and legally possible ; remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing ; • Maintain and enhance the ex isting quality of residentia l neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and • Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion , sex , marital status , income, or familial status. Reg iona l Housing Ne eds Asses sment (RHNA): In March 202 1, SCAG adopted its 6th cycle RHNA alloca ti on plan, covering the plann ing period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cyc le, SCAG received a need of 1,341,827 new housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its "fair share ' of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new housing units. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing uni ts, includ in g 459 new units for residents in the low-and very low-income ca tegories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequa te land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a 'buffer' of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocatio n for lower-and moderate-income categories to account for "No Net Loss · provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, wh ich requ ires th at the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. Project Descripti on : The Project analyzes poten tial impacts resulting from implementation of the City's Housing Element Update and its resulting zon ing code update and rezoni ng program. The Hous ing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have th e potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's RHNA allocation . The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not requi re zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed . The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with a realistic potential for residential development and potential ADUs, as summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Un derutil ized Sites Inventory (Rezon ing Not Required) Assume Above d Lower-Moderat Moderat S ite Address/ Genera l Appr Exis ting Density Income e-e-Total No. APN Plan/ o x. Onsite (Dweiiln Dwelii n inc o m e Income Uni ts Zo n ing Acres Use(s) g Units g Un its Dwelling Dwellin g per Units Acre) Units 1 1780 Pacific Limiled 0.25 Older 20 -5 -5 Coasl Hwy Commer convenie (APN 199--ciaU nceslore; 061-01) RM0-18 zoning allows mixed- use - 2 Leisure Resident 5.5 RV 30 74 38 38 150 Wo~d i al High Slorage (APN 095-Density 691 -04) - Planned Commun ity 3 Accessory I All N/A Residenti N/A 36 14 -50 Dwelling Resident al and Units ial and Mixed- Mixed-Use Use Zones Zones TOTAL 110 57 38 205 Sounce: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Updale. Redline August 24, 2023 Version . The City's RHNA allocation fo r the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new housing units at low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels . Of this to tal allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as B5 units currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City's overall unit requirement. Because the current capacity of these underutilized si tes is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations, proposed rezone sites have been identified, as shown in Table 2, below . Table 2: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) A ssessor's Ex isting Es timated Site Pa rc el App ro ximate C urrent Proposed No. Site Name Number Onsite Acres Developa ble Zoning Zoning (APN) Use(s) Acres 4 Accurate 095-791 -18 Vehide and 4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHO Storage boal storage 5 The Shops al 086-492-51 Retail, office , 27 10 GC MC/RHO Rossmoor fast food , grocery and pharmacy 1 6 Old Ranch 130-861 -Existing 26 5 GC MC/RHO Town Center 14, -15, -commercial 16, -17, • center with ta, -19, -bank , Assessor's Existing Estimated Sit& Site Na me Parce l Onslte Approximate Dev elopable Current Proposed No. Number Use(s) Acres Acres Zo ning Zo n in g (AP N) 20. -21 . -surface 22. -23. -parking, I 24, -25, -restaurants , 26, -27 department stores, retail. services, Ralph's supermarl<et, and CVS Phannacy 7 Seal Beach 095-641-Existing 7 2.5 CS-SC MC/RH O Plaza 44, -49, -commercial 55, -56, -57 center with Chase Bank, retail, market, drive through restaurant, and medical and professio nal offices 8 Seal Beach 043-260-Existing 9 4 SC MCIRHD Center 02, -05 commercial center with CVS Phannacy, retail , services , restaurant, and marl<et 9 99 Marina Drive 199-011 -10 Former oil 4.3 4 .3 OE RHD-33 separation facility with abandoned handball court 10 Old Ranch 130-012-55 Port ion of 155 4 RG SP Country Club existing golf -course 11 Naval Weapons 043-150-23 Portion of 22 4 M NIA St ation PCH & Naval Seal Beach Weapons Blvd.•• Station Seal Beach 12 Water Sto rage -Water and 2.75 2 M NIA Site (City Equipment Property Navy Storage Base)·· 13 Main Street -043-112-Existing 15 NIA MSSP MSSP 21 , -22 . -Main Street 23, -28 , -Specific Plan 29, -34, -commercial 35, -36, -district, 41 ; i nduding I relail , services , Site No. I Site Name Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 043-113- 04. -08. 14. -15. -36. - 37. -42 , - 46, -48 , 51 ; 199-053- 18, -19. - 20, -21 , - 22 . -23 , - 24. -25. - 26, -28, - 29, -30, - 31 ; 199-043- 10; -11. - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 18, -19, - 20; 199-033- 02; 199-034- 01 , -02, 03. -04, -05. - 06, -07 , - 08, -09, - 10, -11 , - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - 16, -17, - 36; 199-044- 19, -20, - 21 , -22, - 23, -24. - 25. -26, - 27. -28 , - 29, -30 , - 31 , -32, - 33, -34 Existing Ons ite Use(s) offices, par1<.ing areas , restaurants and bars, theater, medical offices, plant nursery and other shops and retailers A p proximate Acres I Estimat ed Developable Acres Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023. C urrent Zo ning Proposed Zo ning Notes:· The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHO). The new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. •· Zoning Not Applicable ••• Specific Plan Amendment Required •••• Land Use Change I Rezoning Required GC = Commercial General OSG = Open Space Golf OE = Oil Extraction RG = Recreation Goff CS = Commercial Service SC = Service Commercial MC/RHO= Mixed Commercial/Residential High ----------------------------~ Assessor's Existing Estimated Site Site Name Parcel Onsite Approximate Developable Current P roposed No. Number Use(s) Acres A cres Zoning Zoning (APN) M = Military MSSP = Main Street Specific Plan Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, one would be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan, and one wou ld require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation , 'Mixed Commercial/Residen ti al High Dens ity' (MC/RHO), which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHO mixed -use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RH D)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. Redevelopment of underutilized sites and ADUs could accommodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this , by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 additional housing units , thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1 ,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. As these Housing Opportunity Site s are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densificatio n and intensification of low-and moderate-income residential uses wou ld result. The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore , preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in orde r to consider the potential environmenta l im pacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning design ation resulting from Projec t implementation which would result in increased densification and intensifica tion of resi dential uses. Requ ired Approvals Th e Housing Element is a component of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Additionally , the HCD will review the Housing Element for compli an ce with applicable statutory provisions . A focused EIR will provide the necessary environmental determination required by CEQA. The focused EIR wou ld be adopted by Resolution of the City Council. Implemen tation of the Project would require the following approvals: • Certification of the CEQA document; • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progra m; • Adoption of the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration (if applicable); • Change of Zone/Specific Plan Amendmen t; and • Seal Beach Municipal Code , Zoning Code Amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE EVA LUATE D IN THE EI R The City of Seal Beach , the lead agency for the proposed 61h Cycle Housing Element Update and focused EIR, is subject to environmental review under CEQA. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primari ly to provide the Lead Agency with informa tion to use as the basis for determining whet her an EIR, Negative Declaration , or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropria te fo r providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. The Initial Study prepared for th e proposed Project has detenmined tha t the proposed appl ications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore , an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project . Pursuant to CEQA , the discussion of potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the detail of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (Public Resource Codes (PRC) Section 21100 , CCR Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effect on the environment be limited to substantial , or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions that exist within the affected area, as defined in PRC Section 21060.5 (statutory definition of 'environment'). Environmental effects identified in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project that are dismissed as less than significant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR, unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study (CCR Section 15143). Environmental issue areas scoped out of the focused EIR will inc lude an explanation of why these issues would not result in sign ificant environmental effects and are not required to be evaluated further. The following environmental topics will be evaluated in the EIR: • Aesthetics • Land Use and Plan ning • Ai r Quality • Noise • Biological Resources • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Pub lic Services • Energy • Recreation • Geology and Soils • Transportation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Mandatory Fin dings of Significance The EIR will address the short-term and long -term effects of the Project on the environment. It will also evaluate the potential for the Project to cause direct and in direct growth -inducing impacts, as well as cumulative impacts. Alternatives to the proposed Project will be evaluated that may reduce impacts that are determined to be significant in the EIR. Mitigation may be proposed for those impacts that are determined to be sign ificant. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) will also be developed as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental determ in ation in this Notice of Preparation {NO P) is subject to a 30-day public review period per Public Resources Section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. Public agencies, interested organizations , and individuals have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Project, to identify those environmental issues, potentially affected by the Project which should be addressed further by the City in the EIR. Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources Code, a scoping meeting will be he ld for the general public and responsible and trustee public agencies , as indicated below. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to learn about the Project, review the anticipated scope of the EIR, and assist the City in identifying the range of actions, alternatives , mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. Scoping Meeting Date December 6, 2023 Scoping Meeting Time 6:00 PM Scoping Meeting Location City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Public Review and Comment Period : A 30-day public rev iew period for comments on the scope of the EIR starts on Thursday November 16, 2023, and ends on Friday December 15, 2023 at 5:00 P.M . Please send your comment, with your name and address , to : Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department , 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach , CA 907 40 or via e-mail to: ASmiltle@sealbeachca.gov. A copy of the Initial Study/NOP describing the Project and potential environmental effects is available at the following locations: • Orange County Public Library, Seal Beach Branch, 707 Electric Avenue , Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Orange County Public library, Los Alamitos-Rossmoor Branch, 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach, CA 907 40 • The City's website: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/P lanning- Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. () Stantec CITY·OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study November 16, 2023 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1340 Treat Blvd, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ACRONYMS/ ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECTTITLE .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ...................................................................... 1-1 1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER .............................................................. 1-1 1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS ......................................................... 1-1 1.5 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-2 1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................... 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation ..................................... 2-2 2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2 Housing Opportunity Sites categories ......................................................... 2-5 2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions ........................................................ 2-9 2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential .................. 2-17 2.4 SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................ 2-18 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ..................................................................................... 2-18 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............. 3-1 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3-1 Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ............................................... 3-2 Environmental Assessment Methodology ..................................................................... 3-2 3.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................... 3-4 3.2 AG RI CULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................... 3-7 3.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................... 3-8 3.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-1 O 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-12 3.4.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-12 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-13 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-16 3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-17 II CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents 3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 3-20 3.6.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-20 3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-20 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................. 3-22 3. 7 .1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-22 3. 7 .2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-23 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES ............................................................................................. 3-29 3.8.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-29 3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-30 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................. 3-31 3.9.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-31 3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-33 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................... 3-37 3.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-37 3.10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-38 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................... 3-44 3.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-44 3.11.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-44 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3-46 3.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-46 3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-46 3.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 3-47 3.13.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-47 3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-48 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................. 3-50 3.14.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-50 3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-51 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................... 3-53 3.15.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-53 3.15.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-54 3.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................ 3-57 3.16.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-57 3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................. 3-57 3.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................. 3-59 3.17 .1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-59 3.17.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-61 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 3-63 3.18.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-63 3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-63 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 3-65 3.19.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-65 3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-67 3.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................. 3-70 3.20.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-70 3.20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-72 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................... 3-74 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Table of Contents 3.21.1 Environmental lmpad Analysis .................................................................. 3-74 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 4-1 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations .......................................... 2-4 Table 2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) .............................................. 2-6 Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) .................................................................... 2-7 Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential... ............................... 2-17 Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements ....................................... 2-18 Table 6: City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................ 3-47 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Regional Map .......................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2 -City of Seal Beach Map ........................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3 -Housing Opportunity Sites Map ............................................................................... 1-6 iii CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms/ Abbreviations Acronyms / Abbreviations AAQS AB ADU AF amsl APN AQMP BMP Cal EPA CAL FIRE Caltrans CARB CBC CCC CEQA CHc City CNEL County CO2 DAMP dB DOC DOF DTSC EIR EOP EPA ESA FEMA FIRM FMMP FRA General Plan GHG Ambient Air Quality Standard Assembly Bill accessory dwelling unit acre-feet above mean sea level Assessor's Parcel Number Air Quality Management Plan best management practices California Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Department of Transportation California Air Resources Board California Building Code California Coastal Commission California Environmental Quality Act methane City of Seal Beach community noise equivalent level Orange County carbon dioxide Drainage Area Management Plan decibel California Department of Conservation Department of Finance Department of Toxic Substances Control Environmental Impact Report Emergency Operations Plan Environmental Protection Agency environmental site assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Federal Responsibility Area City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan greenhouse gas iv CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms/ Abbreviations GVVh GWRS HCD HCP HFC Housing Element Update ISMND 1/lratio LCP LHMP LosAI USD MG MGD MRZ MWDOC NCCP NPDES NOP NOx NWR N2'> OCSan OCFA OCTA OCTAM OC\ND OE OPR 03 PFC PM2.s PM,o PRC Project; proposed Project RHD-20 RHNA RPS SB II gigawatt-hours Groundwater Replenishment System California Department of Housing and Community Development Habitat Conservation Plan hydrofluorocarbons 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study Mitigation Negative Declaration ratio of improvement value to land value Local Coastal Program Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Los Alamitos Unified School District million gallons million gallons per day Mineral Resource Zone Municipal Water District of Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Notice of Preparation oxides of nitrogen National Wildlife Refuge nitrous oxide Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Orange County water District Oil Extraction Governor's Office of Planning and Research ozone perfluorocarbons fine inhalable particulate matter coarse inhalable particulate matter Public Resources Code City of Seal Beach General Plan Zoning Code Updates Project residential high density Regional Housing Needs Assessment Renewables Portfolio Standards Senate Bill V CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Acronyms/ Abbreviations SBPD SCAG SCAQMD SCE SFs SoCAB SoCalGas SR SRA SWPPP TAC USEPA UVVMP VHFHSZ VMT Seal Beach Police Department Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management Distrid Southern California Edison sulfur hexafluoride South Coast Air Basin Southern California Gas Company State Route State Responsibility Area Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan toxic air contaminant United States Environmental Protection Agency Urban Water Management Plan Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone vehide miles traveled vi CI TY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initia l Study Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECTTITLE City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project, proposed Project) 1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , CA 90740 1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Alexa Smittle, Community Development D irector Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , CA 90740 (562) 431-2527 x1313 1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR 'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach , CA 90740 1.5 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is currently comprised of 13 identified sites' dispersed throughout t he City of Seal Beach , California (City; Seal Beach) and totaling approximately 278 acres. The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, as shown in Figure 1. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, as shown in Figure 2. ' The Housing Element proposes an increase in accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right . Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a ·site· (Opportunity Site 3) in order to reoognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore, the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites. 1-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Introduction 1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES As the existing land uses are comprised of a variety of land uses across the city, the surrounding land uses are similarly varied in character. They consist of residential development, vacant land, commercial and retail uses, parking lots, mobile home parks, institutional and industrial uses, and military uses as well as other urban and suburban land uses throughout the City. 1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584, projected housing needs for each dty and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern Cslifomia Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029. The Housing Element is one of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. In addition to induding goals, policies, and implementation programs regarding housing issues, housing elements must indude an inventory or list of housing sites at sufficient densities to accommodate a specific number of units at various levels of affordability assigned to the City by SCAG. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low-and very low-income categories. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City, as shown on Figure 3, that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. In Seal Beach, the Housing Opportunity Sites uniquely include two sites located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the City has no zoning authority, but housing development would present a change of use. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). The rezoning effort would also indude the establishment of a new zoning designation, "Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density" (MC/RHO), which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHO mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. As these Housing Opportunity Sites are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densification and intensification of low-and moderate-income residential uses would result. 1-2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Introduction 1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document intended to inform the lead agency, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate potential environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially significant adverse impacts. This document is intended to aid the City in detennining the appropriate Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document needed to support agency discretionary approvals, pennits, and consultations. The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore, preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in order to consider the potential environmental impacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning designation resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Housing Element Update includes an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites located throughout the City, some of which are intended to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation of new housing units that would also be suitable for low-and moderate-income units. 1-3 , ...... _,,,,,. ftl": o1 t • ..J ,. ....... ,, .:.n ,1• • j c'.~o:.~~,:,' Buch l ••11 ,11 " '.-.,.' '"· -1 caoua■,.,__.. '-lo01em~.--. Ca>lll:lrw>ll'C>S~"- L O.U - .. , ,~,,', .. -.. _ l o\·Atl~I~ EI" IL 1..... ~,,,, .. ::~4. ~ p L•~ .. e,.,,h ~:. • IIroillJ' . ,, Legend CII CltY of Seal Beach Boundary I•• ,r .. , r.u r ',.)lll.i A,11.1 -· CrtyofSul BHCfl ,..... "-_...,, .. _""',v.,.;,o'JJ '1,_ <11 .. _,,.it,,11 ... ~11 1' 'n•-..o ___,_.,011,-o OEIICC 1-SCS l'AO .....S -.RCA>; 0.S.N <l,H «--'-l ~S.,,,,,.,, f r ...a;,a,, \4Tt C.,,0-.... {l<orl; o(o,,;) Ctl °"9f'Jlt,«1o'.-c, ---. - ~-... _,,,...,. ... , DNiiii'a:araa m-O'I rlc,,.,ao, ~-~ -· H .:lld .,!!'•'-"...,_ Sta/"'«: NI• ,'GI ... ,. u,■ -KY -ca,,,~-(111'1■, f'IOlff■to'l--1nul o■--IO".,, =• c, --• -.. .,. ~ .-co•ee ,,.,.,., • • -.111 s,,.,._, ....,..a --o _IW','O'"" ~~ l'I e-=i•,::,,nt 1:111"'\II. '"" i:... ,.,i,,o,1 ..r.:,1.s Ml ,_t,,or, io,; ....tv'"O ,.,. .:c..ac:y -COl"'pi,P._ 111 :,,e HouslngElomentandZosw,gCode Updatn Initial SM!y _ ... ! ... RegJcnal Location O.:--T,__.,.. ___ OOllfClflll--llJ--U-.. llllt----... -11111_,..,.,__dt.__,._ __ ..,,__r.,..., _ .. ___ .. _______ 00,_, ....... _ .. __ ..., ... , __ ,._,_,.,..,,,.... ... _,.., __ .,.,,. - i: ..... 11 ... 1 0 1. 0:.0,<1.-iat S1'111'""" NAO •~ Stl:t~- C. 'er"'a II F PS O~F ft{ 1. c.!;ii ~ Legend Cl 1/ i Roumoor ,.. ,,,:. ' t , ·,. ~t · ~-----7 ,/ ~::-· ,,,.,. "I!!.~ Ii / ·•.>- .. .. .... :oi,• •• ~,-..._,,,. ----"-' ...... I ""~ ~~ j'' , j l l .... l ~ 1 .. ,. t .... '•~·' j •'l ..... '111" --- .. , .. 1 1,, •~•S , ....... "''''·' "' Cily of Seal Beach boundary ... _ .. oy ,(,Hl"r.;>)-1••• ot .. -o.,AA""':zon." I• l'Ulf"tl-P.""ttet"'f"ll?Co,t) Cf.8CO U$G$ l'-.0 11:P'S I',,~ c.oe.n.,IG'(.C.e,tQ!'!'.l.. Oror.r.:>t Sur-,ty E.,, J.e.N~ \/Ell £_,, OlN (Hori; ~) (C) O~'ff!Mn 07ltl¢;,lQB, ro O M:1&.r-• • ~..-, '71:,a,'..i HO o,, r'a-aa. :,,,,..c:,e<1 try dl'Hlrs H cu,:t n :r,., Notn MCbO'I S11 1'11:ee ""fCI -.e,-1 ,e,i trw ,,:,c.,o,cy •f'dlllt o:o,,oo,ei-~ -.,...om-11!01'1 a,,c ,~., l'ICt M ,._._:,re ta •"'I ::• 01 0"> ... 0"1-,, .-w, :,,. ,-w.-c,,: ~-"" ;jlll a -~ !b'11!C: .-LJr"el -o ,_.t,,illly .... Cl~• -::,,1,eO "' l edrO-"IC •o,..,a,_ -U'III ,ec,o,.,-,: 1-::(1 11111 •-•b«.tl 10, ....,.,ryt,; t"tl .:e,.taey • ...., OCl""i>t'!I-OI :Ill Houting Element and Zons,g Coclo Updaln lnilialSlucly --z City· of Seal Beach Map Doo<;iaffler. "· "°"""""' nn-. c:reporlCI-on·--"'""'cd br-•·· CIOO••t,. Ntetl ....... a ..... ,,.. not_,,,,_..., -~ .. ell ... domllliona~ wlnot bl.......-r.,.,., ....,..,...,_,_ .. ..,1:11,,__a111or..,.,,.....-•....,..,.,~,.,,--.,-rorffll!.an:l!Ntr--•rus~tc,w,fr,n;t11e-,acyao:1-.i:,1e1.,,...c1u,o - 'A•r-,.... "-t ',I f,l flfl 1 l I .) C:lllfo mn StJI•.• U111. •Jt• h LOO) 0•."lr.h VA L<'n<.l ~,ch t-k.-1llhc 11"J" &tW! Housing Opportunity Sites 1 1780 Paofic Coast Hwy 2. Leisure VVond 3. Accessory Dwelling Units" 4. Accu,010 Ston:,ge 5 The Shops at Rossmoor 6 Old Ranch Town Center 7 Seal Beach Plaza 8 Seal Beach Center 9, 99 Marina Onve 10. Old Ranch Country Club 11 . Naval Woapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd 12. Waler S1orago Sile (City P1operty Navy Base) 13 . Mai n Street • s,.3 lor A«:•uorr Dw.ar,g, UtW• .,. not CW,xt•d ori th•m•p Tbe situ "°'-'kl 0. ~rwd •nd lout~ ,n _,, ,.-.n,.., or ,,...~.,..0,191: Legend ! Housing Oppoe1 unily Site Q Crtyof SoalBeachboundary Rossm oor Joml FolC~ ro,nm Conl'3!r I 13v:ll t'.♦., lp)n Su1un Sunse,I Be-.:ich IJ ~_..,c~11 r..;0 111 ;:<9 I.I F, Id• A,, ~ Stant ec S..e-:•e,, -Crty of Sul Beadl tb:ttJ. !"'Ol'lg<oroJ (C)~V,~C0/11111UIO'l,r,:I I .Coo-c;,,111Sv11..-, "14011iltlStlf:..,_,,, Cldor"'IIV<'?SOtl»r .. ·~-1. ~ so.re.. [_.,._ "'91£. c.-... --• "'O't!"'..C~Oc,o CEICO USG5 JCAO .... ~, i,l!f' .... ~C,-.,..0'1:,,QV4'0~W'!rl H:Ca::l f'i-...-..MOJan $ta~""'"«...,,_, l"'e«:CII#~ ~ ---~--~t""""°"""-0,«lll ....... ,,O tiot •-t/CNfO'•..., ::· Of ,,.. -""""OI" ..... tie "CICl'DOl'«.eG .... WI ... ~,A_ StlU"lllt _ .... _ P'IO rn:or••--, ,er a.,,. klOCll'N .,., r'«l"IIIIC "°"" .. ,-.o ..,. ,eQ1>9"'1 -Ill• M •1!5COr!-"I fO' ..,yt,g rs. ,ca,acw --IM!ff,e,• {I ,.,. Houang !:klmolltand Zona,g Codo Updlta• lnital S11.idr ,.,_,.. . ~ Housing Opportunity Sites Map C)am...,.r,.._,,,...,.,_,P __ Oft.,_P'O'tdmlll-nC1C1C1inll>e-.-a..cc ... ..,....-... ___,_,,,_r1• .. _,.•.,.,•""-""11e-ror.,,, errcnr,_...__11e_....,_••-·--'°-""""..,."°"'•oct,.,.._...i11>e,__.,...~,.,vcrtp,g""_,...., __ ..,...r11 .. - CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND Z ONING CODE U PDATES Initial Study Project Description 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach 's Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24 , 2023. The City is preparing the Hou sing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. 11 is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low• and very low-income categories. The Housing Element Update identifies an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning , the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the M SSP . The City's rezonin g effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHO, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHO mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. This new zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income house holds as required by the state's RH NA allocation for the City and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units . 2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE This Initial Study is prepared for the City lo evaluate potential environmental im pacts resulting from the implementation of the City's recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7 , 2022, and updated on August 24, 2023 in response to HCD comments. II identifies the City's housing conditions and needs and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City's strategy to a=mmodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for lower-income households and for special-needs populations (i.e ., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large fam ilies, and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to certify the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update would bring the element into compliance with state legislation and the City's current RHNA allocation. In March 2021 , SCAG adopted its 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cycle, SCAG received a need of 1,341 ,827 new housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its "fair sha re· of the RH NA allocation of 1,243 new housing units. m 2-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description The Housing Element Update inc ludes the following ccmponents , as required by state law (City of Seal Beach 2022): An analysis of the City's demographic and housing characteristics and trends; An evaluation of land, financial . and administrative resources available to address the City's housin g goals; A review of potenti al ccnstraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meet the City's housing needs; and A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period , including goals pol icies and programs The Housing Element Update identifies the following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all inccme-levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents; Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-and moderate-inccme households; Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; remove governmental ccnstraints to the maintenance, im provement and development of housing; Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, cclor, national origin , ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units , including 459 new units for residents in the low-and very low-income categori es. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. In addition, HCD reccmmends that cities identify a "buffer" of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation to account for "No Net Loss· provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, which requires that the land inventory and s ite identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. Based upon HCD 's buffer policy, Seal Beach must plan for a minimum of 1,430 new housing units. In its current iterat ion, the August 2023 Housing Element plans for 1,833 new housing units to be ccnservative in its approach to th e RHNA and anticipating additional modifications may be required by HCD. 2.2 1 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation Program 1 B of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state's RHNA allocation for the City. As described , in order to implement housing development at some of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income-levels, the City must establish a new m 2-2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description zoning designation, MC/RHO, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently. The new MC/RHO mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre to better facilitate development of housing affordable to lower income levels in accordance with HCD policy. Other changes to zoning designations include implementation of a proposed Specific Plan which includes proposed housing and for which an independent Environmental Impact Report is being prepared: revisions to the existing MSSP to allow for second-story residential use: and rezoning a former oil extraction property to residential use, The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on eight of the Housing Opportunity Sites to align with the densities identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential list (Table 4, below). In addition, the City has a unique circumstance with the two sites located on Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the Housing Element proposes a change in use, but the City has no zoning authority, therefore these sites will not be rezoned through the City's Zoning Code but growth is nonetheless planned for in the Housing Element. Housing Element Update Program 1 B The proposed new zoning designation of MC/RHO will consider how to accommodate State requirements and policies to allaw for: a minimum residential density of 40 units per acre and maximum residential density of 46 units per acre on larger, developed sites large enough size to permit: at least 16 units; exclusively residential uses: at least 50 percent of the building floor area of a mixed-use development to be dedicated to residential uses; and housing by-right with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households. The definitions of "persons and families of low-and moderate-income,• "lower- income households,· and •very law-income households• as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50150 shall apply. The City shall engage with affected property awners, the Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the zoning process to ensure the development standards can result in the development of the maximum number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. 2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SCAG has allocated the region's 1,341,827 housing unit growth needs among the 197 jurisdictions in the region, including cities and counties, through the adopted its S'h cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City's sites inventory must accommodate for in its Housing Element Update, through its General Plan and Zoning. The City's RHNA allocation is 1,243 new housing units, which is distributed among four income categories, consisting of 258 very low-, 201 low-, 239 moderate-, and 545 above moderate-income units (SCAG 2021 ). II 2-3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND ZONING CODE UPDATES Init ial Study Project D escription 2 .3.1 Existing Site Conditions The City ha s identified an inventory of s ites across all areas of the city to implement programs to meet its RHNA. The City's current base zoning, induding the General Plan la nd use designation implemented by zoning d e signation, are provided in Table 1, below. Table 1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations Zoning Abbrevi ation General Plan Designation Impleme nted by Zoning Bas e Resid ential Zoning Districts Residential Low Density -9' RLD-9 Residential Low Density - Residential Low Density -15' RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density -10• RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residen tial High Density -20' RHD -20 Residential High Densi ty Residential High Density -33' RHD-33 Residential High Density Residenti al High Density -46' RHD-46 Residential High Density Bas e Mixed-Use, Co mmerci al, and Indus trial Distric ts Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density<' L-C/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office Service Commercial CS /SC Service Commercial General Commercial GC General Commercial light Manufacturing LM Light Manufacturing Oil Ex1raction OE Oil Extraction Base Public and Se mi-Public Park Districts Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS Community Facility and School Recreation/Golf RG Open Space -Golf Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts Military M Military Beach BEA Beach Open Space Natural OS-N Open Space Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR Park Ove rlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations Residen tial Conservation Overlay RC-0 All Planned Unit Development Overlay PUD/PD All Commercial/Park C/P All Coastal Zone CZ All Specific Plan Regulation SPR All Source. City of Seal Beach , General Plan Zonmg Map , 2013; City of Seal Beach Munici pal Code and Zoning Ord inance , Chapter 11 1 05.030, 2021 2-4 I CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Zoning I Notes: Abbreviation I Gen eral Plan D es ignation Im plemented by Zo ni ng • Typical single-unit, and small, zero-lot line neighbomoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per ne t acre respectively. 11 Duplexes, townhouse proiecls, apartments. and small-lot, single-unit res 1dent1al uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre Add1tJonal density may be achieved through density bonuses c Mutt1-unit res1dent1al developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units pe r net acre. Add1t1onal denSlty may be actueved through density bonuses. a Limited commercial and office uses in conJunction w ith residential uses. 2.3 .2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories An important component of the City's Housing Element Update is the identification of sites for future housing development, including an evaluation of the adequacy of those sites in fulfilling the City's share of regional housing needs. Seal Beach is nearly built-out with almost no vacant developable land remaining . Therefore, the site inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites. The inventory of Housing Opportunity S ites addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the city. Potential underutilized sites and ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods, thereby expanding affordable housing choices . The Housing Opportunity Sites are not concentrated in low-resource areas. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code c hanges and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Underutilized Site s The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with rea listic potential for residential development and potential ADUs , as summarized in Table 2. The Housing Element proposes an increase in AD Us that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a "site· (Opportunity Site 3) in order to recognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore , the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites. The City's RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for a=mmodating 1,243 new housing units at low-. moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City's overall unit requirement. Because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully a=mmodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations. proposed rezone sites have been identified , as shown in Table 2, below. 2-5 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Table 2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) Asaum eel Lower-Mocf• Site General Appro Exfs1fng aenstty rncom &- No. Addre5SIAPN Planf X. Onslte (DWelll 9 rncome Zoning Acras Use(s) .ng Dwelll . ,0we11in UnHs ng ,gl.inHs per Units •Acre) 1 1780Pacific Limited 0.25 Older 20 -5 Coast Hwy Commer-convenienc (APN 199-061-cial/ e store; 01) RMD-18 zoning allows mixed-use 2 Leisure World Residential 5.5 RV 30 74 38 (APN 095-691-High Storage 04) Density- Planned Community 3 Accessory All N/A Residential NIA 36 14 Dwelling Units Residential and Mixed- and Mixed-Use Zones Use Zones TOTAL 110 57 Above Mocfera ta-Total Income .. UnHs Dwellln g Units -5 38 150 -50 38 205 Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Redline August 24, 2023 (City of Seal Beaeh 2023a). Proposed Rezone Sites To accommodate the balance of the RHNA allocation and provide the required unit buffer, the City conducted an evaluation of potential properties where land use regulations could be amended to create additional opportunities for housing or mixed-use development, and 1 o sites have been identified for further evaluation to determine the most appropriate parcels to be rezoned. Due to the lack of vacant and underutilized sites in the city. the sites were identified and analyzed in light of the development standards for their proposed zoning designation. Initially, all parcels in the city were evaluated through a process of elimination based on criteria set by HCD. Where housing units could not be located at sites under present zoning, the City examined nonresidential areas where zoning amendments could facilitate residential development. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. With the exception of the City-owned parcel on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station which was an addition to the draft Housing Element following the withdrawal of a site owned by the County of Orange, the sites listed in Table 3 were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. IJ 2-6 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the site inventory and to estimate the number of additional units that are likely to be developed. Bearing in mind that most of the developable land within the City consists of established residential uses, most of these areas were eliminated from consideration, as land assembly in a single- family neighborhood was considered infeasible. To ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility was determined by a number of different variables, including the improvement-to-land value ratio (Ill ratio), existing lot coverage, lot size, Mure development potential, and existing uses. As the 1/L ratio serves as an indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment, according to the Housing Element Update, a 1/L ratio or less than 1.0 for commercial and multi-family residential properties indicates that the parcels are underutilized, with a higher potential for residential infill redevelopment. Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) Assessor's Eicfatfng Estimated Site Parcel Approximate Current Proposed No. Site Name Number Onalte ACIUS Deveropable Zonfng Zoning (APN) Use(s) Acres 4 Aca.lrate 095-791-18 Vehicle and 4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD Storage boat storage 5 The Shops at 086-492-51 Retail, office, 27 10 GC MC/RHD Rossmoor fast food, grocery and pharmacy 6 Old Ranch 130-861-Existing 26 5 GC MC/RHD Town Center 14, -15, -commercial 16, -17, -center with 18, -19, -bank, 20,-21,-surface 22, -23, -parking, 24, -25, -restaurants, 26, -27 department stores, retail, services, Ralph's supermarket, and CVS Phannacy 7 Seal Beach 095-641-Existing 7 2.5 CS-SC MC/RHD Plaza 44, -49, • commercial 55, -56, -57 center with Chase Bank, retail, market, drive through restaurant, and medical and professional offices It 2-7 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Assessor's Existing Ea1fmatad . Site Parcel Approximate No. Site Name Number -Onslte -Acres Developable (APN) Use(s) Aci'as' • 8 Seal Beach 043-260-Existing 9 4 Center 02, -05 commercial centerwith CVS Pharmacy, retail, services, restaurant, and market 9 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil 4.3 4.3 separation facility with abandoned handball court 10 Old Ranch 130-012-55 Portion of 155 4 Country Club existing golf course 11 Naval Weapons 043-150-23 Portion of 22 4 Station PCH& Naval Seal Beach Weapons Blvd ... Station Seal Beach 12 water Storage -Water and 2.75 2 Sile (City Equipment Property Navy Storage Base)" 13 Main Street -043-112-Existing 15 NIA 21, -22, -Main Street 23, -28, -Specific Plan 29, -34, -commercial 35, -36, -district, 41; indudlng 043-113-retail, 04, -08, 14, services, -15, -36, -offices, 37, -42, -parking 46, -48, 51; areas, 199-053-restaurants and bars, 18, -19, -theater, 20, -21, -medical 22, -23, -offices, plant 24, -25, -nursery and 26, -28, -other shops 29, -30, -and retallers 31; 199-043- 10; -11, - 12, -13, - 14, -15, - -Proposed Currant .Zoning ,zonlng SC MC/RHO OE RHD-33 RG SP M NIA M NIA MSSP MSSP 2-8 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Site No. Site Name Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 16. -17. - 18. -19. - 20 ; 199-033- 02 ; 199-034- 01 , -02, 03, -04, -05 , - 06, -07, - 08, -09, • 10, -1 1, • 12 , -13,. 14 , -15, • 16, -17, • 36; 199-044- 19, -20, - 21 , -22, • 23, -24 , - 25, -26, - 27, -28 , - 29, -30, - 31 , -32, - 33, -34 Existlng Onslte Use(s) Approxi mate Acres Estimated Oevelopable Acres Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. August 2023. Current Zoning Proposed Zoning - Notes:· The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHO). The new mixed -use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. •• Zoning Not Applicable ··• Specific Plan Amendment Required •••• Land Use Change I Rezoning Requi red GC = Commercial General OSG = Open Space Golf OE = Oil Extraction RG = Recreation Go~ CS = Commercial Service SC = Service Commercial MC/RH O= Mixed Commercial/Residential High M = Military MSSP = Main Street Specific Plan 2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site 0escripflons The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, w ith an explanation of the methodology for the sites that are currently deve loped with various uses. With respect to existing utility infrastructure, such as water. wastewater, drainage systems, and dry utilities, there are no known limitations that wou ld preclude the potential development and increased intensification of uses 2-9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description at each of the Housing Opportunity Sites. A description of the Housing Opportunity Sites is provided below, as taken from the August 24, 2023 Housing Element Update (City of Seal Beach 2023a). Site 1 -1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning) Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; Pacific Coast Highway), at the eastern comer of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west are single family residential uses. Size: 0.25 aae Current Use: retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop. Current Zoning: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. The site is immediately adjacent to housing, with access to goods and services. Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 20 units per acre. The site can reasonably accommodate a ground floor commercial use and parking, with five second-story housing units. Because of its small size, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income site inventory, as shown in Table 4, below. Site 2 -Leisure World (No Rezoning) Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Boulevard, Seal Beach Boulevard, Interstate (1)-405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about 0.33 mile from the southwestern comer of the community. Size: 5.5 acres Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage Current Zoning: Residential High Density-Planned Development (RHO-PD) Reason For Selection: The underutilized site is located in a community that, while not income-restrided, offers a variety of affordable housing options with more than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consisting of low-to moderate-income households. The existing site zoning allows for residential high- density development. Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 150 units can be accommodated at a density of 30 units per acre on approximately 5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage. As 75 percent of the population in Leisure World currently consists of low-to moderate-income households, Table 4, II 2-10 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Sludy Project Description below, projects half of the units as lower-income, one quarter at moderate, and the balance at market to be conservative. Site 3 -Accessory Dwellfng Units (No Rezoning) Location: Throughout the City, in all residential and mixed-use zones. Current zoning: All Residential and Mixed-Use Zones Reason For Selection: ADUs represent a significant opportunity for affordable housing, particularly for single persons or small households including the elder1y, college students, young adults, and caregivers. Assumed Development Capacity: While interest in ADUs has not historically been high in Seal Beach, recent changes to state law have increased awareness and interest. It has conservatively been assumed that 50 ADUs will be built during this planning cyde. Given that ADUs can introduce low-income units in high resource areas, the City would undertake a number of steps to promote the development of ADUs and consider development of incentives to make ADUs affordable to very low-income households. The City would monitor the effectiveness of its efforts twice a year and make adjustments as necessary. SCAG conducted a regional survey and reported the results in August 2020. SCAG's research supports an assumption that 73 percent of ADUs could be affordable to lower-income households in the County (even assuming a 50/50 mix of one-and two-person households). Evidence from other jurisdictions throughout California indicates that between 17 and 50 percent of ADUs may be rent-free as the property owners provide housing for their adult children and/or aging parents. The inventory in Table 4, below, implements SCAG's assumption of 73 percent of units at lower-income, and the balance at moderate. income. Site 4 -Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required) Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. Size: 4.4 acres Current Use: Self storage facility Current Zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20) Reason For Selection: This site has been selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking onsite, its proximity to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has access to employment and transit routes. Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The 1/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development 2-11 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES I nitial Study Project Description due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yield ing up to 83 units, or more if a density bon us is employed. However, given the existing onsite buildings and the resulting limitations to development design, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59 . Because the presumed developable area is less than two acres, Table 4 , below, projects a conservative estimate of only 1 O percent at lower-income and 1 O percen t at moderate-income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre. Site 5 -The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Requ i red) L ocation : This multi-address retail center is located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. Size: 27 acres Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl's, Ulla. Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington Current Zon i ng : General Commercial (CG) R eason Fo r Selection : This site was selected due to an abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site's 1/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land. High-density residential uses are located adjacent to the property to the west, as such the site's proposed high-density use would be consistent with surrounding uses. Assum ed Dev e lopment Capac ity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that 1 O of the acres could be developed with housing. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHO, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 460 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential, Table 4, below, projects 25 percent of uni ts at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market rate. Sile 6 -Old Ranch Town Center (Re zoning Required) L o cation : This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. Size: 26 acres Current Us e : Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph's supermarket. C urrent Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Reason For Sel ect ion: Similar to the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town center has a significant amount of underutilized parking , and primarily big box uses. The addition of housing to this site is feasible 2-12 Commented [S P3J: This is a very successful shopping center, much valued by the community for it's accessible location, accessible parking , and attactive and welcoming street facing de sign that invites us in to socialize , eat, rest, and shop. The EIR needs to assess if and exactly where there is an excess of parking , because that is not completely eviden t. If existing parki ng needs to be replaced with a multi-story parking garage in order to accommodate new residences, the inviting street-facing aesthetics could be ruined , hidden I by an ugly co ncrete parking garage. We shouldn't have to tum Sea l Beach's successful suburb an shopping centers into an over-shadowing urban concrete blight like th e San ta Monica Promenade. This potential impact on commerce and aesth etics needs to be studied in the EIR. ____ _j CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services , has access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate with the scale of the existing development. The 1/L ratio ranges by parcel, with the larges t parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0 .07. A ssumed Devel opm ent Capacity : It is assumed 20 percent of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHO, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 239 units. Because of the deve lopment potentia l, Table 4 , below, projects 25 percent of units at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market. Site 7 -Seal Bea c h Plaza (Rezoning Require d) Locatio n: This multi-address retail center i s at the northwest comer of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Boulevard. Two churches a nd Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. Si ze: 7 acres Curre nt Us e : Retail and office/service uses. Current Zonin g : Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Se lection : This site's Ill ratio is less than 1.0 (0.72). Similar to other retail plazas , the site is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers access to goods and services. The s ite is located adjacent to Leisure World where existing development is high-density. Assumed Devel o pment Capa c ity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project ; however, it is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 2.5 acres of the site. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHO, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 115 units. However. due to the smaller developable a rea , Table 4 , below, conservative ly estimates 10 percent of units at lower-income, 10 percent at moderate-income, and BO percent at market rate. Site 8 -Seal Be ach Center (Rezoning Required) L ocation: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across Pa cific Coast Highway from Main Street. Size: 9 acres Cu rrent Use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces. Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason For Selection : This site has an I/L rat io less than 1.0 (0 .72), in dicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides walkability a nd access to goods a nd services, induding an e lementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking m 2-13 lCommented (SP4J: Please see previous comment on Page 3-12, regarding new residentia l developmen t within existing commercial parking areas. "' CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description and redeveloping portions of t he site with housi ng above retail. The property represen tati ves have expressed an interest in m ixed-use development as a future possibility to increase site utility. Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 4 .5 acres of the site . This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/R HO, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up 207 units, without us ing a density bonus. However, because the site is adjacent to low-density single- family use, and greate r setbaeks or step-backs may be appropriate in the r evised zoning code, a lower development threshold of 120 units and 4 acres of developable area i s assumed. While fou r acres is ample development capacity, because this opportunity site is directly across the street from single-family homes, Table 4 , below, conservatively estimates 15 percent of the units at lower-income levels. 15 percent at moderate-income , and the balance at market despite being zoned a t 46 units per acre. Site 9 -99 Marina (Rezoning Required) Location: 99 Marina Driv e, northeast of Mari na Drive and First Street intersection. Size: 4.3 acres Current Use: Vacant. A handball court i s located on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court as the court is located adjacent to a publ ic park. Current Zoning: Oil Extraction (OE) Reason For Sel ection: Oil extraction activities at the site no longer occur and the current property own ers (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. City staff has received inquiries on the property from potential buyers and support or residential development at the site, from the community. Add it ionally, the site is surrounded by existing residential uses. A s sumed Development Capac ity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this loca tion may have additional development standards imposed by the California Coastal Commission , similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production anticipated at the site is 90 un its, all or which are conservatively assumed to be above moderate-income. Site 1 O -Old Ranch Country Club (Re zoning/land Use Change Required; Specific Plan Required) Loc ation: The entire facility, approximately 155 acres in size. is located north of Lampson Avenue, and south or the Joint Forces Training Base and Old Ranch Town Center, just east or Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed housing sites are located along the western edge or the property, one near the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Bo ulevard, and the other further south, across Lampson Avenue from the Ivy Park assisted living facility . Size: 155 acres 2-14 Commented [SPSJ : Please see comment on page 2-12 1 regarding potential parki ng . commercial. and aesthetic impacts of new residenti al developments in existing retail shopping centers __ . __ _ ---------, l Com mented [SP6]: This area appears to be listed on the Geo Tracker as being in need of remedial action. II is not clear that a site assessment has been completed I I to determine the level of cleanup that will be requi red. II may not be feasible to clean the site up to residenti al standards within an appropriate lime frame , or ever. Proposing new low income housing on a former waste site could create environmental justice issues. The EIR needs to study these issues and potential constraints. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT ANO ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Current Use: Golf course and supporting amenities. Current Zoning: Recreation Golf (RG) Reason For Sel ection: At this time, the landowner has a development application in process with the C ity for the development of 116 family units and 51 senior u nits. A ssumed Development Capacity: As this is an active development application, the numbers proposed by the property owner are now the assumed development, for a total of 167 units. All units have been assumed at above moderate-income levels . The existing development application is for a specific pla n, which would guide development of the housing as well as a hotel and modifications to the existing clubhouse and golf facilities . An EIR is being prepared for the proposed development. Approval of a specific plan is a discretionary action by the City Council. A new development agreement between the developer and the property owner is expected to be a part of the development application that w ill ultimately be considered by the City. Site 11 -Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Boulevard (Zoning Nol Applicable) Location: Within the Sea l Beach Naval Weapons Station, front ing Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boul evard. Size: 22 acres Current Use: Military use; the site is mostly vacant except for a concrete traini ng pad and a 960 square foot prefabricated metal buil ding used as a c lassroom . Current Zoning: Military (M) Reason For Selection: This site was selected i n collaboration with the U.S . Navy (Navy), which successfull y requested letters of interest to develop this site. The Navy's vis ion includes uses that would serve military personne l, including the potentia l for housing. The Navy has already initiated enviro nmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This site is generally undeveloped and is under singular ownership. The s ite is located in proxim ity to goods and services, includi ng an elementary school. A m ixed-use development, i ncluding housi ng, is generally anticipated, and assumes 150 residential units in a vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use development. These assumptions were ar rived at in cooperation with Navy representat ives. Because census data shows lower-income levels at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station currently, Table 4, below, assumes one-third of the units a t lower-income, one-third at moderate-income, and one-third at above moderate-income. Despite bei ng w ithin the City , this i s federal property; therefore, the City has no zoni ng autho ri ty over th is area. Site 12 -Water Storage Site (City Properly Navy Base) (Zoning Not Applicable) L ocation: Within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Stati on, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way. Size: 2. 75 acres 2-15 I Commented [SP7]: This area seems to be prone to persi stent historical flooding and oth er drainage problem s. which need to be studied In the EIR. Add itional development could exacerbat e the problems, and/or widen the impacts to th e additio na l homeown ers. The poten tial high cost of flood i nsura nce may make thi s are a unfit for low or middle ~me housing. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Proj ect Description Current Use: Water and equipment storage Current Zoning: Military (M) Reason For Selection : Thi s parcel is owned by the City of Seal Beach. While the water storage facility i s in active use and needs to rem ain in use, the balance of the site has comparably minima l utility . As a part of the Housing Element process, the Ci ty looked for opportunities to leverage property it owns. This parcel has capacity for greater utilization. Potential development of the site has been presented to Navy staff. Presently, the Navy is amenable to considering a project that could benefit both the Navy and the City , such as affordable housing for veterans. Assumed Dev elopment Capacity: Depending on the exact size and configuration of the parcel, at least 65 units could be a=mmodated on a parcel of approximately two acres. Presumed to be an affordable housing development, 50 of the units are assumed to be at lower-income levels and 15 of the units at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4, below. Site 13 -Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Amendment Required) Location : The Main Street Specific Plan area covers is the traditional downtown commercial core of Old Town, primarily defined by Main Street. Size: 21 acres Current Use: Mixed-use, including retail, offices, micro-scale manufacturing, and resid ential. Current Zoning: Main Street Specific Plan (MSS P) Reason For Selection: The area provides for a pedestrian-oriented mix of offices and retail uses with some residential units, which were built prior to adoption of the MSSP. Because Main Street is already developed as a pedest rian fri endly area surrounded by residential neighborhoods, exis ting uses would not be an impedime nt to the expansion or residential units in this area. Assumed Development Capacity: Although the area could accommodate a sizable number of residential units if the area is redeveloped, it is recognized that such redevel opment is very unlikely to occur durin g this planning period. Consolidation of lots under fragmented ownership would be challengin g. A two-story height limit has been imposed in this area by voters , further affecting redevelopment o pportunities. However, some parcels could accommodate one or more units towards the rear of t he lot and/or above an existing single-story retail building. Space exists on some sites to develop units over open parking areas, as well. A physical inventory of the area revea led pote nti al to a=mmodate 163 units if the City allows a minimum unit size standard of approximately 400 square feet. T he proposed MSSP amendment would allow for residenti al uses on second stories or fronting rear alleys, such that Main Street itself remains a retail environment. At these small sizes, these uses would be a ncillary, most akin to accessory dwelling units and , therefore , have income-levels have been categorized the same way , with 73 percent at lower-income levels and the balance at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4 , below. 2-16 Commented [SPBJ: The two-story limit. which was I approved by a significant majority of voters through Measure Z, has yet to be codified in the City Zoning Code. even though that code modification was specifically stipulated in the language of Measu re Z. It would be helpful to point th is out in th e EIR so that j questions regarding this Issue can be cl arified and c~ through zonin g code changes. Commented [SP9J: The E IR shou ld address potential parking shortages and related impacts created if residential units are placed in existing parking areas I located •towards the rear of the lot" of existing retai l. The EIR should add ress. and suggest mitigation for, the potential loss of historic, and aesthetically pleasing architecture and facades of the existing one story comme rcial buildings. Those building may need to be demolished or significantly altered in order to place a new second story residential unit on top . How will the s uccessfu l commerce of Main Street, which relies on the historic character and charm of Main street building facades be preserved and not destroyed? We need to enhance and preserve Main Street, not ruin it. We've I seen recent new Main Street construction that diminishes, ra ther than enhances. the unique treasure that is Main Street. T hat is why this issue needs to be addressed in the EIR and given the higher level of pubic review Iha! an EIR receives. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description 2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Resldentlal Development Potential As shown in Table 4, below, redevelopment of underutilized s ites and addition of ADUs could result in a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a tota l of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 addit ional housing units, thereby a=mmodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1 ,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The residential site development potential is shown in Table 4 . Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential Potential Moderate-Above Density Lower-Income Income Moderate- Site No. Site Name (Dwelling Dwelling Units Dwelling Income T otal Units Units per Units Dwelling Units Acre) Underutilized Sites 1 1780 Pacific 20 -5 .. 5 Coast Highway 2 Leisure 30 74 38 38 150 Wo~d 3 Accessory NIA 36 I 14 .. 50 Dwelling Units Total Unrls from Underutilized -110 I 57 38 205 Si tes Rezoned Sites (Unless MIiitary) 4 Accurate 46 6 6 47 59 Storage 5 The Shops 46 115 115 230 460 at Rossmoor 6 Old Ranch 46 59 59 121 239 Town Center I 7 Seal Beach 46 12 I 12 91 115 Plaza 8 Seal Beach 46 15 I 15 90 120 Center 9 99Marina 33 --90 90 Drive 10 Old Ranch ---167 167 Country Club 11 Naval 30 50 50 50 150 Weapons Station PCH m 2-1 7 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description Potential Madenffe-·A.bov., pens11y income Modenrte,. Lower-Income Site No. Slte~ame (Dwelfing DwellfrigUnHs DweOing Income Total UnHs UnHs.per UnHs Dwelllng UnHs Acre) & Seal Beach Blvd. 12 water 33 50 15 -65 Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) 13 Main Street NIA 117 46 -163 Total Units from Proposed -424 318 886 1,628 Rezoning Total Units including 534 375 924 1,833 Underutilized Sites, ADUs, and Rezone Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023. Notes: The current MU is only associated with LC/RMD. A new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46. Potential units based on estimated development area. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low-and very low-income categories. In accordance with the "No Net Loss" provisions of SB 166, Housing Opportunity Sites inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update indudes sufficient sites to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation. 2.4 SCHEDULE Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would generally occur during the same time frame of the Housing Element Update, which is from 2021 through 2029. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Anticipated permits, approvals, and consultations include, but are not limited to, the adions described in Table 5 below. Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements Agency PennHs and Other Approvals City of Seal Beach • Certification of CEQA do0.1ment • Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable) • Change of Zone I Specific Plan Amendment II 2-18 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Project Description II • Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment 2-19 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and M itigation Measures 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an EIR , Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriale for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed Project. A=rding to Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposa l if the following conditions occur: The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality or the environment. The proposal has the potential to achi eve short-term envi ronmental goals lo lhe disadvantage of long-term envi ro nmental goals. • The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but c umulatively considerable. The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment. A=rding to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal cou ld result in a s ignificant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to insignificant levels. This Initial Study has determined that the proposed applications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project. This Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) are prepared in conformance with the CEQA of 1970, as amended (Publi c Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et. seq .); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA of 1970, as amended (Californ ia Code of Regulations , T itle 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of the County; a nd the regulatio ns, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. The C ity is the Lead Agency, in a=rdance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. T he Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal respons ibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for any project in the City. 3-1 C ITY OF S EA L BEA C H HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONI NG CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation T his In itial Study and NOP are informational documents intended to inform decision makers, other responsi ble or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed changes. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of e liminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be g iven to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and socia l goals. The Initial Study and NOP prepared for the Project will be circulated fo r a period of 30 days for public and agency review and comments, to facilitate preparation of the EIR. Environmental Assessment Methodology T he environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this Project, involving at least one i mpact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact ," as ind icated by the checklist on the following pages. i8! Aeslhetics i8! Greenhouse Gases i8! Public Services :J Agricultural and Forestry ~ Hazards and Hazardous E Recreation Resources Ma terials E Air Qu ality E Hydrology and Water i8! Transportat ion Quality X Biologica l Resources X Lan d Use and Planning i8! Tri bal Cultural Reso urces :& Cultu ral Resources 0 Mineral Resources X Utilities and Service Systems i8i Energy Resources i8! Noise D \1\/ildfires i8! Geology and Soils i8! Population and Housing ~ Mandatory Findings of Sign ifican ce Determ ina tion Based on this initial evaluation: D I find that th e proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION w ill be prepared. D 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 proj ect have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION w ill be prepared. IZJ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially significant i mpact· 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 appli cable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri bed o n attached sheets. A n 3-2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures ENVIRON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but ii must analyze only the effects th at rema,n to be a ci ci /1/ / Signature Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director City of Seal Beach !fl(L{/.)&3 Date 3.3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSI NG ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 AE STHETICS Potentially L ess Than AESTHETICS Significant with Would the project: Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporation Except as pro vided in Public Resources Code Section 20199: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ b) Substantially damage scenic resources , including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and □ ·" historic buildings wi thin a State scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public Views are those that are ~ □ experienced from a publicly accessib le vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area , the potential of the project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scen ic ~ty? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which □ □ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3 1. 'I Envl ·onmental Setting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 0 D D 0 □ D 0 D As descri bed in the City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan (General Plan). visual resources in the City include the Pacific Ocean coastal waterfront, including beaches, the shoreline. wetlands and marshlands. There a re approximately two miles of beachfront shoreline in the City, which i s considered to be of regional significance for passive and active recreational activities. As the Project implementation would result in future development and more dense residential uses in the vicinity of the coastal waterfront, potential impacts to aesthetics are evaluated below. 3.1 2 Envi ronmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a s ubstantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant Impact Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain , or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and ex1end into the distance, and focal views tha t focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest. The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources: nor are there any specific policies related preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. 3-4 - r Commented [SP10]: Item a) should be characterized l as a potentially significant Impact. Adverse effects on a scenic vista could occur. Views of historic Main street with the Pier and the Pacific Ocean in the background could be allered irreparably and forever by removing/replacing historic facades and ma terial s wilh modem . inferior. ugly or characterless facades. This would impact the recreational and commercial resources and services that Main Street has historically provided . It could significantly diminish what the community and visitors values most about Main Street. These impacts will also be difficult to successfully avoid and mitigate ... just as it would be diff1CUII to successfully recreate or preserve the character value J ~ of any historic building undergoing structural enlargment. Commented [SP11]: Item b should be categonzed as fess than significant with mi6gation incorpora6on . Main Street is part of the scenic highway corridor. providing views of the Pacific Ocean and the historic Pier within the frame of historic sunny Main Street sidewalks. [ trees. and building facades. _ ., Commented [SP12J: Item d) light or glare ... should be characterized as fess than significant impact with miti gation. II is infeasible to assess this potential impact until the materials , heights, and facades and views of the proposed buildings are known . Therefore, lhe programmatic EIR needs lo be revisited and updated on this topic when a specific project is later proposed. or a separate project EIR needs to be undertaken. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Indiv idual developments that would be developed on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites under the Housing Element Update would be dispersed throughout the City and would be located in areas that are highly urbanized with surrounding existi ng developments that already limit potential views to scenic resources. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including bu il ding heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City's design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would t h e project substant ially damage scenic resources, i ncluding, but n ot limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scen i c highway? Finding: No Impact According to the California State Scenic Highway Proj ect, which is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Caltrans 2022), there are no state-designated scenic highways located in the City; nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state-designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 91 , between the city limits of Anaheim and S R 55 to the south, and it is the only state-designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site i s approximately 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91 . Implementation of the Project would not occur with in the vicini ty of state scenic highways and would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact in this regard. As such this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) In non-urbanized areas, would t he project s ubstantially degrade the existing visual charac t e r o r quality of public views o f the site and its s urroundings . (Public Views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, the potential of the project to conflict with applicabl e zoning and oth er r egulations governing scenic quality? Finding: Pote ntially Significant Impact Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the identifi cation of parcels located with in the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the C ity meet its RHNA allocation. Additionally, implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the creation of a new zoning di strict that would be applied to five of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and one site identified as a Housing Opportunity Site would be rezoned to an existing zoning district to accommodate housing. As such, future residential development associated with Project implementation would occur within urbanized areas of the City. Although future Project implementation would not include development on previously undeveloped areas that are not surrounded by urbanization, some of the Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for future resid ential 3.5 Commented [S P13): Measure Z needs 10 be codified as requi red to limit 2-stories in Old Town. "Old Town" needs to be defined and its location shown on a map. "adherence to the City's design guidelines and standards ... would minimize and reduce potential impacts" This has not recently been the case : witness the recen t large commercial deve lopment on comer of PCH and Main Street. This is why an EIR and the public transparency and review of the EIR are needed for such developments. Some or the development sites have potential for significant visua l impacts. Therefore, this top ic DOES require furth er analysis in the EIR. Comme nted (SP14): CA HWY 1 is designated as an All-American Road by US DOT. The Seal Beach portion of CA HWY 1 is eligible for designation as a Scenic Highway. II could be designated as such at some future time. The view of historic Main Street, and the Pacific Ocean from CA HWY 1, makes this portion of the CA HWY1 drive beautiful, in viting, nostalgic and unique. The EIR should recognize this resource and assure that it is protected from development impacts. ____ _ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures development could affect areas that are along the City's interface with coastal or open space areas. Additionally, future Project implementation could include the development of new infrastructure which may have the have the potential to a lter the existing visual character of the area . Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR . d) Would the project create a new source of s ubstantial light or glare which would advers ely affect day or nighttime views in the a rea? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Typical current sources of light and glare throughout the C ity include interior and exterior bui ldi ng lighting, illuminated signage, ba llfield lighting, lighting from vehicles along existing roadways, and other ambient lighting present in urba nized settings. Sources of glare include glass or metallic surfaces o r finishes, on structures and even off of vehide w indshields, that could cause glare effects. Some of the more suburban, lower density, or open space areas of the City have less sources of illumination, lighting and glare. Implementation of the proposed Project would occur in areas designated for redevelopment and would allow for development of currently underutilized parcels in the City. Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within currently illuminated areas. \Nh il e the increased residential density assoa ated with Project implementation would likely i ntroduce new sources of light and glare i n their immed iate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and li ght standard heights (City of Seal Beach 2021 ). As future residential development resulti ng from Proj ect implementation would adhere to the provisions of the Municipal Code and all other applicable regulations related to light and glare, th e increased residential density proposed by the Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare wh ich would adversely affect views in the area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this topic does not require furth e r evaluation in the EIR. 3-6 Commented [SP15J: This cannot be adequately assessed al all of the proposed development siles until more details of the future developments are known . Therefore, the EIR should slipulale lhat these impacts needs to be thoroughly assessed and avoided or mitigated on a project-specific basis through a publicly reviewed EIR conformance study, or an update or amendment to the programmatic EtR, or through site- specific EIRS, at the time the development projed is proposed . CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Potentially Less Than AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Significan t with Would the project : Significant Mitigation Impact In corporation a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance {Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the □ □ Farmland Mapping and Mon itoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non. agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, □ □ or a Vll1lliamson Act contract? c) Confli ct with existing zoning for, or cause rezon ing of, lorest land {as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(9)), timbertand {as defined □ □ by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timbertand zoned Timbertand Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of □ □ forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which , due to their location or □ □ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, lo non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 3.2 1 Environmental Setting Less Th an No Significa nt Impact Impa ct □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ As outlined in the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element of the General Plan, open space land is defined as any parcel of land or water that is essentially unimproved and is devoted to open space use. Land which is used as managed production of resources i s protected under the Element. Within the City, certain parcels of land principally within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are being used for agricultural production . Approximately 2,000 acres of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are currently used for the production of st aple vegetable crops, such as beets, carrots, and com (City of Seat Beach 2003). Additionally, according to the Department of Conservation 's (DOC's) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), prime and unique farmland are identified within the City's boundaries specifically within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The other portions of the City are mapped as Urban and Bu ilt-Up Land or Other (DOC 2023a). FMMP defines Other Lands as Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and ripari an areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land (DOC 2023a). According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Production (CAL FIRE), there are no Timber Production Zones designations or Timber Harvesting Plans w ithin the City (CAL FIRE 2023b). 3.7 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis , and Mitigation Measures 3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysls a) Would the project Conv ert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitori ng Program of the California Res ources Agency, to non-agricu ltural use? Finding: No Impact As mentioned above, the Prime and Unique Farm land categories are mapped in areas of the City; however, these mapped areas are limited to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Stati o n property. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 a nd 12 are located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; however, the portions of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property where Sites 11 and 12 are located are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land on the FMMP. No other proposed Housing Opportunity Sites were identified on the FMMP as being located on Prime, Unique, or Farm land of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Proj ect does not have the potentia l to cause signifi cant impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict w i th existing zoning for agricultural u se, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No Impact A=rd ing to the City's Zoning Map Ind ex and Orange County's Public Works Land Records Map, none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Wi lliamson Contract and therefore , there would be no impact related to conflicting with a Williamson Act contract. (City o f Seal Beach 2013; Orange County 2023). The City 's Zoning Code does not include any ag ricultural land use designations. However, some of the City's commercial , industrial , and open space zoning designation allow agricultural uses onsite. Agricultral uses allowed in the City are mostly limited to nursery uses, with crop raising allowed under one open space zon ing desi gnation. As the City does not have any zoning designations that are specifically for agricultural uses, implementation of the Proj ect would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use . Additionally, none of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites that is not p roposed for rezoning are under existing zoning designation that allow agricultural uses onsite. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning would be rezoned to residential zoning districts to allow for additional housin g opportunities in the City and would not confli ct with any agricultural zoned parcels . Implementation of the Proj ect does not have the potential conflict w ith any existing zoning for agricultural use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the El R. m 3-8 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(9)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Finding: No Impact As discussed above, there are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project result In the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact As discussed above, the parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and there are no forest lands located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the toss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result In conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No Impact Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low-and moderate-income residential uses in areas throughout the City. As discussed above, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use, and important farmland was not identified amongst the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites. Although the Project involves rezoning to accommodate additional housing needs, the Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 3-9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Init ial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 AIR QUALITY Potentially Less Than AIR QUA LITY Significant L ess Than No Significant Sig nifican t Wo uld th e Project: Impact with Mitig atio n Impact I mpact Incorporatio n a) Conflict with or obstruct implemenl ation of lhe 0 □ D □ a pplicable air quality plan? b ) Result in a cumulalively considerable net increase of any ctileria pollulant for wh ich lhe Project region is ~ □ □ □ non-attainment under an applicable federal or slale ambient air qualily standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollulanl 0 □ □ □ concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading lo 0 □ D D odors) adversely affecting a substanlial number or people? 3.3.1 Environmenta l Setting The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non- desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties. SoCAB is designated nonattainment for ozone (O,) and fine inhalable particulale matter (PM2 s) under the California and National Ambient Air Quali ty Standards (AAQS), nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for coarse inhalab le particulate matter (PM ,o) under the Californ ia AAQS (City of Corona 2019). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with SCAG to attain the Nationa l AAQS. In March 2017, SCAQMD adopted the 20 16 AQMP which is composed of stationary and mobile-source emissio n reductions from regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefi ts from climate programs, mobile-source strategies, and reductions from federal sources such as aircrafts, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels. Strateg ies outlined in the 20 16 AQ MP would be implemented in collaboration between California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP foreca sts that the SoCAB will need to increase oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reductions by 45 percent additional reductions above exi sting regulations for the 2023 ozone standard and 55 percent addition al reductions above existin g regulations to meet the 2031 ozone standard. 3 3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air q uality plan? Finding: Po t entially Significant Impact As result of increased development and densification associated with future Project implementalion, emissions w ould be generated d uring both construction and operation of individual developments . Project 3-10 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through conflict or obstruction of the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, these impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in a non-attainment area for National AAQS and California AAQS. As such, Project implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through a potential cumulatively considerable net increase of particulate matter during construction. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact While it is unlikely that sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, due to construction or operation associated with Mure Project implementation, there is the potential to cause significant environmental effects if such exposure were to occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would include the development and operation of new and more intense land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the City, from both stationary and mobile sources. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those lead Ing to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Project implementation could cause the generation of new sources of odors or other emissions. Generally, residential land uses do not generate odors that could affect a substantial number of people, because they are not considered a typical odor-producing source, such as a waste treatment facility or an industrial operation. While it is unlikely that substantial numbers of people could be adversely affected by odors due to future construction or implementation of the proposed Project, there is the potential for the Project to result in other emissions. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. 3-11 C ITY OF SEAL B EA CH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setti ng, Ana lysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE S Less Than BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Woul d the project Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifica tions, on any species identified as a candidate. sensitive , or speci al status 18) □ species in local or regional p lans, policies, or regulations, or regulated by the Californ ia Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripari an habitat or other sensitive natural community identifi ed ~ □ in local or reg ional pl ans, policies, regu lations or by the Ca lifornia Department o f Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service ? C) Have a substant ial adverse effect on state or federa lly protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, [8] □ marsh , vernal pool , coastal, etc.) through direct removal , fil ling, hydrol ogical interruption , o r other means? d) Interfere substantially with the mo vement or any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with [8] □ established nalive resident or migratory w ildlife corridors, or i mpede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any focal policies o r ordinances protecting D □ biological resources , such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions or an adopte d Habitat Conservation Plan , Natu ra l Community Conservation 18) D Plan , or other approved local , regional , o r state habitat conservation plan? 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ D □ The western edge of the City i ncludes shoreli ne, beaches and marinas which support a reas of biolog ical diversity. The Sea l Beach National WI id ii fe Refuge (NWR), established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh area located at the Seal Beach Na val Weapons Station. It includes habitats that are essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, including federal-and state-listed endangered species. The Seal Beach NWR i s under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for the perpetuation of two endangered species, the light-footed Ridgway's rail and the California least tern , and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds a nd other waterbirds (USFWS 2023a). Oth er species of concern found in the Seal Beach NWR include the Eastern Pacific green sea turtle, Beldi ng's savannah sparrow, and other year-round species including ospreys, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great bl ue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, brown pelicans, crabs, and snails . There are a number of winter m igration species as well , including Canada, snow and Ross' geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, Ameri can avocet, black-bellied plover , and least and western sandpipers. Additiona ll y, many m 3-12 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environm ental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, there can be small rays and sharks along the protected waters of the Seal Beach NWR (USFWS 2023b). In addition to the Seal Beach NWR , another area with potential sensitivity for biological resources is approxim ately 1 DO-acres of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, which has been deed-restricted for future sale to a public agency for purposes of wetlands restoration , open space , and environmenta l education purposes . An adjacent approximately 50-acre oil production property has been similarly restricted (City of Seal Beach 2003). Numerous other parks, golf courses , greenbelts and open space corridors provide potential habitat areas for various plant, insect, bird, reptile and animal species. Due to its location along the shore of the Pacific Ocean, development and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are also subject to review by the California Coasta l Commi ssion (CCC) for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City is in the process of developing a Loca l Coastal Program (LCP) which will implement the Coastal Act at the local leve l, and r educe the need for direct proj ect review from the Coastal Commi ssion. 3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project have a s ubstantial adver se effect, eit her d i r ectly or thro ugh habitat m od i fication s, on any species id entified a s a c andidate, sens itiv e or special s t atus s p ecies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or regulated by the California Depa rtment of Fi sh and Wildlife o r U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Fi nding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by provid ing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats, and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. While some of the Project's identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within highly urbanized areas, such as parking lots of existing commercial centers, other Housin g Opportunity Sites are located in proximity to or within areas that are not developed or near areas of potential sensitivity for biological resources, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 9, 1 o , 11 and 12. As such , future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect , either dir ectly or indirectly, on special-status species. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Wou ld t he proj ect have a s ubst a ntial adverse effect on any riparian habi tat or other s ensitive natural co mmuni ty Identified in local or r egion al plan s, policies, and regulations or b y the California Departme nt o f Fish a nd Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildli f e Service? Finding : Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, portions of the City are located within the jurisdiction of the CCC. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4 , 8 , 9, 11 , 12, and 13 are located within CCC jurisdiction, while Housing Opportunity m 3-13 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Sites 2 and 7 border the CCC jurisdictional boundaries (City of Seal Beach 2023b). Housing Opportunity Site 11 borders the Seal Beach NWR. As such, future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (Including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other means? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, the City has identified areas where wetlands and other sensitive marsh and coastal features are present, including within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, the Seal Beach NWR, and the beaches and shorelines along the western border of the City. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to minimize effects to wetlands, marshes and coastal areas, in compliance with the CCC and all other applicable requirements; however, several Housing Opportunity Sites may be located within proximity or within such areas and may have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project 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 native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As described above, the City and County have identified areas where native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species regularly occur, including the Seal Beach NWR. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are in the vicinity of the Seal Beach NWR, an important stop for migratory species along the Pacific Flyway, and Housing Opportunity Site 1 o is located on a golf course which may be used by migratory species. Half of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the CCC jurisdiction and/or in proximity to the shoreline and beaches. As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would occur in proximity of areas, potential impacts to migratory species may occur. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Future residential development on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. All resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees (City of Seal Beach 3-14 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 2023e). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by this regulation and ensure the Project does not lead to removal of designated landmark trees. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and therefore, it does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats. and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. In addition to being located under CCC jurisdiction. the City is also induded in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (CDFW 2023). Protected natural communities under the OCTA NCCP/HCP include California walnut woodland, canyon live oak ravine forest, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest. southern cottonwood willow riparian forest. southern mixed riparian forest. southern will scrub and valley needlegrass grassland (CDFW 2013). Further evaluation is required to confirm that there would be no conflicts with these or other plans. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. IJ 3-15 CITY OF SEA L BEACH HO US ING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDA TES In itial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .5 CULTURAL RESOURCES L ess Than CULTURAL and TRIBAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Significant with Would the project: Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance ~ □ of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ~ □ an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064 .5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred □ □ outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ ~ □ For over 10,000 years, the Seal Beach area, including Anahe im Bay and the San Gabriel estuary, have supported Native American people and their cultures, with evidence of the City's past found in the a rchaeological record and remaining historical sites; however, few archaeological sites remain in th e City , primaril y due to development along the coastline . As provided in the City's General Plan Cultural Resources Element, prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrielino Native Americans, with the city on the southern end of the extensive tribal territory which extended into Ventura County to the north and San Bernardino County to the east (City of Sea l Beach 2003). It is also understood that the Juanerio Native Americans w ere also present in the Seal Beach area , as the neighboring tribe to the south. More specifically, the Gabri elino community of Motuuchey was located in today's Old Town area , and archaeological resources were prima ri ly located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, Hellman Ranch and potenti ally on a Boeing property. In the 1780s, the historic settlement of th e c ity began with the assignment of a 300,000-acre land grant of Rancho Los Alamitos, which s upported agriculture and cattle grazing due to proximity to the Santa Ana River. The Mexican Warof 1846 to 1848 marked the e nd of the Rancho era and Mexican governance, and in 1864, Rancho Los Alamitos was purchased by Jotham Bixby and German immigrants who formed the Anaheim agricultural colony . Anaheim Landing was the port created to facilitate goods movement in and out of the region and was the first port in Orange County. The area transitioned into th e resort community of "Bay City," in 1903, and was connected to Los Angeles with the "Red Cars• of the Pacific Electric Railroad . Today, an histo ric Red Car can be found on the old Paci fic Electric ri ght-of-way. In 1906, the longest pier south of San Francisco was constructed, and it included a bath house, dancing pavilion, roller coaster and more. With a population of 250, Bay City was incorporated in 1915, becoming known as Seal Beach , and the town was a successful resort community by the 1920s. A flurry of growth and development ended with the Great Depression, and in 1939, hurricane winds cu t the pier in half. World War II brought a second boom of construction to the City, as military facilities were placed throughout the City and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station was built. ID 3-16 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND Z ONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysi s, and Mitigation Measures The development of Lei sure World began i n the late 1950s. With a current population of over 24 ,000, the City remains a tourist destination. Historic resources in the City include the Old City Hall, which is on the National Register of H istoric Places. Th e early port of A naheim Landing is recognized for its historical significance by the State of California. The City's General Plan Cultural Resources Element i ncludes the following goal and policies related to cultural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003): Goal 1: Preserve and protect h istorical, archaeological and p aleontological resources. Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project's potential impacts to existing cultural resources. Policy 2 : Identify, designate, a nd protect sites a nd buildings of historic importance. Policy 3: Coordinate cultural resource programs and development project review w ith affected resource agencies and Native American representatives. Policy 4: Identify funding programs to assist private and public property owners in the preservation o f buildings and sites of historic importance. Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologi st for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive to cultural resources. 3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the p roject c ause a s ubst a n t i al adverse c h an ge i n t h e s ignificance of a historical r e s o urce a s i de nti fied in S ection 15064.5? F i nding: Potentially Significant Impact This Project sets the framework for fu ture growth a nd development in the City by providi ng additional opportunities for development of low-a nd moderate-income housi ng, and therefore, it does not directly result i n development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to demolition or a lteration of any historic resources. Furthermore, future developmen t Projects would be required to comply with the City's General Plan Cultural Resources policies related to preservation of resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contai n historical resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefor e, this potenti ally significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. 3-17 Comm ented [SP1 6): I agree with the find ing that this isl a po ten ti ally signi fi cant impact. However, not all the right reasons for that finding are included here. And those omissions may result in an inadequately scoped EIR. The EIR studies need to be broade r and consullive of the state's expe rt preservationists and me thodologies. There are 360 Seal Beach sites curranlly listed in the BERO (The Calffomia State Built In ventory Resource Directory), managed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Some of these may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, or as Ca lifornia Historica l Landmar1<s. More importantly, EIR studies may reveal additional buildings, build ing remains, artifacts, or other resources in Old Town and other parts of the City that are historically significant. Those should be identified and registered. Each of the I sites should be researched and evaluated (site- speci fically) by a qualified archaeologist/historian. incorporating pedestrian surveys as well as desktop surveys . We should not limit studies 10 areas already known to be sensitive to cu llural resources. Toe EI R f should study , in a site-specific manner, and idenlify all potentially historic resources all areas proposed for develop~ ____ ) Co mmented [SP17): We need to be adequately thoughtful and broad in our EIR scope. We are not only worried about digging into /destroying buried unknown historical resources; we are also ooncemed about destroying the historical value of the resources that are in plain site . Main Street's historic, quaint bright storefronts, sunny , tree-lined sidewalks , under open skies and wi thout oppressive urb an shadows. That is an invaluable, rare , and treasured resource in Southern Californi a. The history , development , success. and preserva tion of Mai n Street should be studied , and measures shoul d be iden tified to avoid or mitigate Impacts. We should co nsull with the SHPO and CA office of historic preservation , utilizing its "Main Street" preservation program and guidelines and the Eigh t Guiding Principles for preserving and restoring 'Main Streets'. !lllJls://ohp.par1<s.ca.govnpage id=23484 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project itself would not directly affect archaeological resources as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. However, Project implementation could indirectly affect archaeological resources, as it would allow for Mure development of the sites. Grading and construction activities of parcels identified for the Project could require earth moving activities that could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. According to the General Plan Cultural Resources Element, there are very few archaeological sites in the City. Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code, and cultural resources receive protection under both the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Long term implementation of the Project could allow development induding construction activities and grading in areas with undiscovered archaeological resources. Therefore, the Project could result in potential unearthing of previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and result in significant impacts. iThe Project would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to archaeological and cultural resources.[As it is unkn~ if Housing Opportunity Sites may.contain unknown archaeological resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, Including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during earth moving activities. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Although construction activities associated with development of the Project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance 3-18 Commented [SP18]: VI/hen development is proposed, the proposed project needs to undergo a review of conformance to lhe programmatic EIR. V\lhen conformance cannot be adequately detennined, due to a lack of adequate site-specific data, or because data does not adequately reflect current knowledge, conditions or study protocols, the projects should be required to perform additional studies to infill, update or otherwise aeate a complete and publicly reviewable characterization of resources and potential impacts. We should develop the Avoidance, Mitigation, and Monitoring Plan to specifically govem the potential future development projects. The Plan should also specify administrative mechanisms to assure that avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring measures will be Implemented and enforced, even If projects are not Initiated for many years. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. IJ 3-19 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Stud y Environmental Se tting, Analysis, and Mitigati on Measures 3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES Less Than ENERGY RESOURCES Potentia lly Significant S ignificant with W ould th e proj ect Impa ct Mitigation Incorporation a) Result in potentially significant environmen tal impact due to was l eful, inefficienl, or unnecessary ~ □ consumption of energy resources, during project conslruction or operation? b) Conmct with or obslruct a stale or local plan for □ □ renewable energy or energy efficiency? 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ [8] □ - Southern California Edison (SCE) is th e provider of electrical services to most of the City. Total electricity consumption in SCE's service area, which spans much of southern California from O range and Riversi de Counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County to the north, in gi gawatt- hours (GWh) w a s approximately 81 ,128 GWh i n 2021 (SCE 2019; CEC 2023a). Sources of electricity sold b y SCE in 2018 w ere: 36 percent renewable, consist ing mostly of sola r and wind 4 percent large hydroelectric 17 percent natural gas 6 percent nuclear 37 percent unspecified sources (CEC 2019) Southern California Gas C ompany (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the City and maintains transmission and distribution lines through the C ity . T he service area of SoCalGas spans much of the southern half of C aliforn ia, from Imperial County in the southeast, to San Luis Obispo County In the northwest, to part o f Fresno County in the north, and to Riverside County and most of San Bernard ino County in th e east (SoCalGas 2023). Total n atural gas consumption in Ora nge C ounty in 2018 w as 575.1 million therms, with 339 million therms used by residential uses (CEC 2023b). 3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Wo uld the pro j ect result i n potentially s ignific ant enviro nmental impact due to w as teful , inefficient, or unnecessary consumpti on of energy resource s, during Projec t cons truction or operation? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Construction and operation o f the proposed Project would result in an increase d intensity of uses and more residential units. These additional uses would consume more energy which could result i n a potentially significant environmental impact. Therefore, this potentially significant impact w ill be further analyzed in the EIR. m 3-20 Commented [SP19): A poten tial inefficient use o f energy would incl ude an inadequate energy supply or delivery capacily available to mee t the increased demand caused by additional development. This could result in brownouls, blackouts, and many related sa fety issues. This pol enlial impact needs to be studied on a Project basis but, more importanlly, on a cumula tive basis si nce that energy Is a shared resource across many citi es in Californi a th at are similarly increasing power demand th rough new residential developmen t projects. The cumu lative impacts may be po tentially unmitigable withi n th e Project timeframe. CITY OF SEAL BEAC H HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZO NING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures b ) Would the proj ect conflict with o r obst ruc t a st ate or local plan for re newable energy o r en ergy effic iency? Fi nding: L ess Than Sign ificant Impact California 's electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program. In general, the state has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, 40 percent by 2024 , 50 percent by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045 (California Public Utilities Commission). The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE and SoCalGas. As SCE and SoCalGas are required to meet the RPS goals for 2030 to provide at least 60 percent clean energy to its customers, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be consistent with statewide goals. The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update, and individual development projects constructed as a result of Project implementation would be required to comply with the current and future iterations the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code . Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project impl ementation would be required to implement Housing Element Update policies which support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update includes the following goal and policies related to energy efficiency that would be appli cable to the proposed Project: Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through ·green building' techni ques that reduce water consumption , im prove energy efficiency and lessen a building's overall environmental impact. Policy 6b: Promote "smart growth" principles by encouraging compact development in locat ions that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips. Th erefore, with implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy , future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. m 3-21 1 Commented [SP20]: The increased cumulative demand for energy is already conflicting with and obstructing eartier stale and local plans to dose nuclear plants, causing the expansion, rather than the reduction, of fossil fuel energy plants. and causing greater demand, not less, for transportation fossil fuels and imports of foreign oil. Renewables are not providing adequate supply to meet demand. Renewables are more costly and raise the cost of housing in California. The State's energy policies and the housing policies are at odds with each other. Additional development proposed here will only worsen these problems. These potential significant impacts of the Project needs to be studied both from a project anj a cumulative perspective and made transparent in the EIR. ( Commented [SP 21 ]: The EIR should require open space and tree planti ng and maintenance as part of each development project. in order lo mitigale lhe increases In almospheric carbon and provide cooling shade. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analys is, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than GEOLOGY AND SOILS Poten tially Significant Would the project: Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Directly or indirectly cause subst antial adverse effects , inctuding the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake rault , as delineated on the most recen t Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Faull Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area □ □ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division or Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 . ii. Strong seismic ground shaking ? □ □ iii. Seismic-related ground failure , including □ □ liquefaction? iv. Lan dslides? □ □ b) Resull in substantial soil erosion or the loss or □ □ topsoil? c) Be located on str ata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result or the project, □ □ and potentially resull in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence , liquefaction , or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-8 or the Uniform Building Code (1994 ), creating □ □ substantial direct or indirect ri sks to life or property? e) Have so ils incapable or adequately supporting the use or septic tanks or allemative wastewater disposal □ □ systems where sewers are not av ailable for the disposal or wastewater? fJ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological (8) □ resource or site or un ique geological feature? 3.7.1 Environmental Setting L ess Than No Significant Impact Impact (8) □ (8) □ ~ □ lSJ □ (8) □ - (8) □ (8) □ □ (8) □ □ The City is located in the Los Angeles coastal plain in the Peninsular Ra nges of Southern California. These Ranges are made up of hills and ranges w i th intervening, long , and narrow valleys that trend northwest. The City is in a zone of deformation extending from the root of the Santa Monica Mountains as far southeasterly as Newport Beach, called th e Newport-Inglewood belt. The Newport-Inglewood belt is a surface expression of the Newport-Inglewood Faull zone (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3-22 CITY OF SEAL BEAC H HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures The majority of the City is located within an alluvial plan that extends southward from the convergence of Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River. The two channels drain from the northeast and north, and the combined fiow reaches the sea at A lamitos Gap. Elevations within the City vary from approximately sea level to 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Landing Hill (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3 7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Wo uld the projec t directly or indirectly cau se p otenti al subs t a ntia l ad v erse effects, inclu d in g the risk of loss, injury, o r death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthq uake f ault, as delineated on the m ost recent Alqu ist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Z oning Map Is sued by t h e State Geol o gist for the a rea or based on othe r substantial evi d ence of a k now n fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geo l og y Spe cial Publication 4 2? Finding : Less Than Signi ficant Impact The entire City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located in the seismically active Southern California region. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11 ,000 years). The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fau lt (CGS 2023). All except one of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south or this zone and not within it. Housing Opportunity Site 12 is traversed by an earthquake fault and therefore, is located within an earthquake fault zone. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans, wou ld ensure that potential surface fault rupture impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003): Poli cy 3a: Require a soils and geology report to be prepared and filed for all development projects as specified in the City's Municipal Code. Policy 3b: Require geological surveys to be prepared after onsite borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are subm itted to the City for approval. Policy 3c: Require supervision by a state licensed soils engineer for grading operations which require a grading permit. Policy 3d : Maintain and enforce protection measures which address control of runoff and erosion by vegetation management, control of access, and site planning for new development and major remodels , including directing runoff to the street and compliance with setbacks. 3-23 f Commented (SP22J: Flooding in some of the proposed1 project areas is already a significant problem that has not been avoided or adequately mitigated by these proposed administrative Policy controls. This shows that the Issues of flooding, grad ing. soil drainage. liquification, runoff and vegetation management do need to be studied and addressed on a site-specific basis in the EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures • Policy 3e: Restrict development projects that will cause hazardous geologic conditions or that will expose existing developments to an unacceptable level of risk until the causative factors are mitigated. • Policy 3f: Require independent review of the geologic and soils reports as appropriate. • Policy 3g: File and reference copies of pertinent site-specific geologic information and index the information in the City's Geographic Information System. • Policy 3h: Provide ongoing maintenance and inspection of all public drainage facilities and eliminate or mitigate uncontrolled storm drain flow on hillsides or bluffs. • Policy 3i: Require the use of drought-resistant vegetation with deep root systems where appropriate for safety reasons in new development projects to reduce the potential for overirrigation. Encourage the use of drought-resistant vegetation throughout the City through public education efforts. • Policy 3j: Maintain the present City practice of adopting the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (as amended and published by the International Conference of Building Officials at approximate three-year intervals) because it incorporates the latest accepted standards for seismic design that reflect advances in technology and understanding of hazards. • Policy 3k: Prohibit the location of new essential facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency centers and water tanks in geologically hazardous areas unless it is determined that there is no feasible alternative and the hazard is adequately mitigated. • Policy 31: Require that earthquake survival and efficient post-disaster functioning be a primary concern in the siting, design and construction standards for new essential facilities. • Policy 3m: Evaluate the long-term risks and their associated costs versus the costs of relocation when major improvements to existing essential facilities are proposed and the facilities are located in known hazardous areas. Relocate the facility if the analysis indicates this is more cost effective in the long term. • Policy 3n: Determine the liquefaction potential of a site prior to development and require that specific measures be taken, as necessary, to reduce damage in an earthquake. • Policy 3o: Promote the collection of relevant studies on fault location and history of fault displacement and liquefaction for future refinement of the geological information within and around the City. • Policy 3p: Identify the effects of the most probable seismic event (Modified Mercalli intensity value VIII or more) on the infrastructure within the City. • Policy 3q: Incorporate information on the probable seismic event impacts on infrastructure into the development of capital improvement programs so as to upgrade the survivability of the infrastructure. 3-24 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures • Policy 3r: Work with governmental agencies (i.e., Caltrans and Water Districts) and the public utility companies to identify and promote effective mitigation of the effects of the most probable seismic event on the infrastructure which supports the City of Seal Beach • Policy 3s: Prepare a Geological Hazards Map based on a study of the geological formations and hazards of the entire City, employing a format compatible with the City's GIS mapping system. • Policy 3t: Integrate the latest information about earthquake survivability into the City's public safety education program. Encourage the retrofitting of every home within Seal Beach for earthquake survival, especially in the area of adequate anchoring (tie-down) of the homes to their foundations. As there are no known active faults crossing the majority of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and majority of the sites are not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, ground rupture is unlikely. However, Housing Opportunity Site 12 is located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and, as such, there is some potential for ground rupture to occur. Potential impacts to new developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would be subject to individual CECA analysis on a project level to analyze potential impacts related to seismic hazards. All future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be required to demonstrate conformance with federal, state, and local seismic design guidelines and requirements. Individual developments would be required to prepare and submit geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans and would be required to implement project-specific mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and preparation of seismicity reports would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the ElR. Ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less Than Significant lmpad As with most of California, there is a significant potential for seismic ground shaking to occur. The Seal Beach Fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking in the City, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Other large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas, and many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year. An earthquake of moderate-to high-magnitude generated within the Los Angeles or Long Beach area could cause considerable ground shaking at the Housing Opportunity Sites, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the effects of strong seismic ground shaking, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, at a minimum. While there is no way to avoid ground shaking and earthquake hazards, compliance with CBC requirements, including specific provisions for seismic design, would mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes on new future construction. The Project would require that future residential development be II 3-25 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, Including liquefaction? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Liquefaction generally occurs as a result of strong ground shaking in areas where granular sediment or fill material either contains, or is located immediately above, high moisture content. The ground shaking transforms the material from a solid state to a temporarily liquid state and can result in settlement. flow failure, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction is a serious hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may sink or suffer major structural damage. These geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 1 o, and 11 are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2023). Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies mentioned above and would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Landslides? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Landslides are the downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials including rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials under the direct influence of gravity. The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level, and there are no hills or mountains adjacent to them. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone (DOC 2023). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork: however. mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations. and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II 3-26 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact During Project implementation and construction, onsite soils can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP is required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading. limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize soil erosion impacts that could result. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project be located on 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? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The General Plan identifies that the City's Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City's Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports are required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations. including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations. would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report, and geotechnical evaluations as required under Chapter 9.50.020 of the Municipal Code. Recommendations in the geotechnical reports are required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future residential development resulting from Project implementations. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project IJ 3-27 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND Z ONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures implementation would be required to comply with CBC and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With im plementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be l ess than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the proj ect have s oils incapable o f adequat ely s uppo rti ng the u se o f septic ta n ks o r alternative was t ewate r disposal s ystems where sewers a re not available for the dis pos al of wastewater? Finding: No I m p act The General Plan identifies the City as completely 'built out" and necessary i nfrastructure such as wate r, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no i mpact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. f) W o uld the p r oj ect directly o r indi rectly d estroy a unique pa leontological resource o r s i te or unique geo logical feature ? Finding: Po t entially Significant Impact As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project by itself would not directly affect paleontological resources, as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and, therefore, does not directly result in development. However, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could indirectly affect paleontological resources, as it would allow for future development of the sites . Grading and construction activities on Housin g Opportunity Sites i dentified for future residential development could require earth movin g activities that cou ld potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources and result in significant impacts. Future residential development resulti ng from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain unknown paleontolog ical resources, surveys will be conducted to determi ne and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. IJ 3-28 Commented (SP 23]: The EIR needs to address the adequacy of the existing wastewater disposal systems to meet the additional capacity required for the Project's developments. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDAT ES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .8 GREENHOU SE G AS ES Potentially Less Than GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant Significant Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Incorporati on a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions , either directly or ~ □ indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conmct with an applicabl e plan , policy or regulalion ~ □ adopted for the purpose of redu cin g the emissions of greenhouse gases? 3.8 .1 Environmental Setting Less Than Significant No Impact Impact □ □ □ □ Various gases in the earth 's atmosphere, classified as atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth's surface temperature. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (P FCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFo). Each GHG d iffers in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent, which weight each gas by its global wanming potential. Expressing GHG emi ssions in carbon d ioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Based on a 100-year lime horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF,, SFo, PFCs, and black carbon. Emissions from future residential development resulting from Project could be generated by the following sources: m Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the City boundari es and from external/internal veh icle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the City). Energy: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas consumption used for cooking and heating in the City. Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generated in the City. Water/Wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water based on the overall water demand and wastewater generation i n the City. Area Sources: Emissions generated from light commercial equipment, agricultural, and construction equipment u se m the C ity . 3-29 l Commented (SP24]: Please add emissions from ~cling", "lighting", appliances , etc. l Commented (SP2S]: Including also backup generators, portable equipment. --, CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact This Proj ect sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and therefore , does not directly r esult in development. Certification of the Proj ect i tself would not lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions; however, future residential development associated w ith Project implementation would result in greenhouse gas emissions. As s uch, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from future Project implementation that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project identifies Housing Opportunity Sites that have the potential for provid ing additiona l housing to meet the City's RHNA allocation Development of the Housing Opportunity Sites would require activities that would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, future residentia l development resulting from Project implementation may conflict with an applicable plan , policy , or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions and greenhouse gases, and th is potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. 3 -30 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Would the project: Significant with Impact MIUgatlon Incorporation a} Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D environmen t th rough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasona bly foreseeable upset D D and accident conditions involving the relea se of hazardous materials into the envi ronmen t? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substa nces, or waste D D within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d} Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials si tes compiled pursuant to D D Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a sig nifican t hazard to th e public or the environment? e} For a project located wi thin an airport land use plan or, wh ere such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, (8) □ would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing orwor1<ing in the project area? f} Impair implementation of or physically i nterfere with D D an adopted emergency response plan or emergency eva cu ation plan? g} Expose people or structures, either directly or D D indirectly . to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact [8] D [8] □ [8] D [81 D □ D [2] □ [2] □ Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances. hazardous wastes. and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment i f released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials are manufactured, transported, stored , used, and disposed of on a regular basis. Although hazardous materia ls i ncidents can happen anywhere, certain areas are at higher risk. Within the state. the Californi a Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) regulates the use and hand ling of hazardous materials and haza rdous wastes. T he California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a d ivision of Cal EPA and works in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to enforce and imp le ment hazardous materials laws and regulations. The primary transportation routes of hazardous materials in Orange County near the City are the 1-405 and 1- 3-31 Commented [SP26]: Item d } should be characterized j as a Potentially Significant Impact. Th e Marina site (an historic oil transport ation site} and other si tes where oil production , transportation , and processing took place should be assessed at least at a site-specific Phase I level in the EIR. Other sites with potential hazardous wast e should be assessed to identify th e responsible party and the timing and cost of potential cleanup to residential standards. Some of these sites may not be able to remediated to residential levels within the development timeframe specilled i n the Housing Element, if ever. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 605 freeways. Some transportation of hazardous materials occurs on Pacific Coast highway and Seal Beach Boulevard within the City (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, there are several hazardous materials deanup sites within the City that are listed on several databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website (SWRCB 2023). The City's General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials (City of Seal Beach 2003): • Policy 2A: Coordinate with federal, state, and county hazardous waste management plans to protect the health and welfare of the public, the environment, and the economy of the City of Seal Beach through comprehensive programs that ensure safe and responsible management of hazardous waste and materials. • Policy 28: Implement the measures outline in the City's Household Hazardous waste Plan, Orange County's Hazardous waste Management Plan, and Hazardous Materials Area Plan, and the County's Operational Area Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan to ensure the effective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste on a City-wide level. • Policy 2C: Support enforcement of state "right to know" laws, which outline the public's right to information about local toxic producers. • Policy 2F: Facilitate coordinated effective response to hazardous materials emergencies in the City to minimize health and environmental risks. • Policy 2G: Promote public awareness in hazardous materials emergency response preparedness by any effective informational media, such as Emergency Preparedness Newsletter, neighborhood posters, and at least annual presentations at neighborhood association meetings. • Policy 2H: Support the combination of the OCFA's hazardous materials disdosure program. Ensure annual inspections of businesses that generate or use hazardous materials, and identify and monitor any historical hazardous materials sites within the City for public health and safety issues. • Policy 21: Promote public participation and education in the implementation of the programs identified in the County's Hazardous Materials Management Program. • Policy 2J: Encourage OCFA to monitor the flow of hazardous materials through the City to ensure public safety. • Policy 2K: Encourage coordination between the OCFA and the Seal Beach Police Department in the designation of routes and enforcement of hazardous materials, routing ordinances, and laws with the 1-405 freeway as the primary designated route. 3-32 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis , and Mitigatio n Measures 3.9 2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project create a significant hazard t o the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities associated with future residential development resulting from Project implementation is anticipated to involve demolition, grading, and construction of new s tructures and buildings . Hazardous material s, such as paints , sealants, solvents, diesel fuels, and other typical hazardous materials for construction would be used. With the use of these material s, there is potential for spills to create hazardous conditions. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan , and General Plan policies that would minimiz e risks associated with the use or hazardous materials during construction activities, and they would be required to adhere to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) throughout Project im plementation. The Project is proposing rezoning and establishment or additional residential and housing zones for Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City . Upon completion of construction hazardous materials associated with Project operations wou ld include materials used during typical household cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these potentially hazardous materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, paints , fertilizers , and herbicides and pesticides. Many of th ese materials are considered household hazardous waste , common wastes, and/or universal wastes by the USE PA, which considers these ty pes or wastes to be common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when property handled , transported , used, and disposed of (USEPA 2020). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow these types of wastes to be handled and disposed or with less stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not have to be managed as hazardous waste. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through routine transport, use, or di sposal of hazardous materi als, and impacts would be less than significant. As such , this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the e nvironment through r easonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions invo lv i ng the release of hazardous mat erials into the environment? Finding : Less Than Significant Impact During construction activi ties, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. 3-33 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Future Project implementation would establi sh additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. As mentioned above, common materials associated with residential uses indude small quantity hazardous material , such as cleaners and pesticides. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project e mit hazardous e miss ions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, s ubstances, o r waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schoo l? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are distributed throughout the City . Housing Opportun ity Sites 8 and 11 are located within one-quarter mile of McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. As stated under Impact a), construction activities required for future residential development re sulting from Proj ect implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize ri sks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future residential development resulting from Project implementat ion would be required to comply with ex isting laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste , and emiss ions to minimize the potential for hazardous emi ssions to occur. Adherence to federal, state , and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste w ithin one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school , and impacts would be less than significant. As such , th is topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR . d) Would the project be located on a sit e which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a r esult, would it c r eat e a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: L ess Than Significan t Impact The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Co rtese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide add itional hazardous materials release information for the 3-34 ,-------- Commented [SP27]: See comment below, regarding the Geo Tracker hazardous waste site list and the I inclusion of the Marina site on it. The EIR should look at each of the proposed sites more closely from a waste si te/risk perspective. It may not be feasible to locate residences on contaminated sites, or do so in a timely fashion. The Marina site may not be suitable for residential development. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Cortese List. Several hazardous material sites are identified within the City; however, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified on the Cortese List. Individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be req uired to complete an environmental site assessment (ESA) by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites a nd th at any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment . Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation or a Phase 11 ESA, which would consist or sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified. Future res idential development resulting from Proj ect implementatio n would be required to implement the recommendations induded in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building perm its. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at th e local, state, and federal level would be required. Addit ionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Pla n policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future residential development re sulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparatio n of environmental site assessments, impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 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 or private airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The closest public airport to the Housing Opportunity S ites is Long Beach Airport, located approximately 5 .2 m iles to the northwest of the City. The City is not located w ithin the Long Beach Airport's A irport Influ ence Area and therefore, Long Beach A irport operations would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noi se for people residing or working on the id entified Housing Opportuni ty Sites (Los Angeles County 2004). The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is not a public airport: however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity S ites 5, 6 , and 10.). As identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the C ity is located within the ai rport's notification area and the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throug hout the airport's different height restriction zones and impact zones. Therefore, there is potential for development or the Housing Opportunity Sites to result in safety hazards. As discussed in Section 3. 13, Noise, below, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located withi n the 65 decibel (dB) noise contour areas for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces T raining Base, under both existing and future scenarios , as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However. some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control m easures to m inimize potential impacts. T herefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los A lamitos Joint Forces Training Base , 3 -35 f Commented [SP28): Please refer to the Geotracker for a more complete and up-to-date listing of hazardous waste sites and their current status in and around the proposed project site areas. The Manna site seems to require assessment and remedial action . Other sites may also require assessment and remediation or be J very close to areas requiring remedial action. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures implementation of the Project could result in a safety or noise hazard for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). All future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the OCFA's Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City's EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or Indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wlldland fires? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future residential developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City's EOP and LHMP. Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II 3-36 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSIN G ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than HYDRO LOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Slgnlflcant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge D □ ~ requ irements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with grou nd water recha rge 0 □ D such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the si te or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the ad dition or impe rvious surfaces, in a manne r which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-D D 0 or off-sile; ii. Substantially inccease th e rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would 0 D □ result in flooding on-or off-site; iii. Create or contribute rvnoffwaterwhich would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 0 D □ stormwater drainage syslems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv, Impede or redirect flood flows . ~ D □ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ~ □ □ release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a wa ter 0 □ □ quality con trol plan or sustainable groundwa ter management plan? 3.10 1 Environmental Setting The City is located wi thin th e Santa Ana River Watershed, which is the most extensive watershed in Orange County, running through a three-county ar ea from i ts headwaters in the San Bernadine Mountains to i ts outlet in the Pacific Ocean (Orange County 2013). The Santa A n a River Watershed encompasses approximately 2,700 square miles. □ □ □ □ □ □ D D The City is located near multiple hydrologic features which indude rive rs. the Pacific ocean and w etlands. Within the City limits is the mouth of the San Gabriel River, draining a n area of approximately 700 square miles w ithin Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the Pacific Ocean, and various wetland areas that are subject to various sources of pollution within lhe community. The San Gabriel R iver is located a long the western boundary of the City. The San Gabriel River originates in Los Angeles County but empties into the ocean at Seal Beach. Additionally, the river provides an outlet for flood control basins and channels I m 3-37 CI TY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT A ND ZONING CODE UPD A TES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures within the City. The river is a major source of ocean contamination after storm events due to the washing of upstream pollutants and trash into the ocean (City of Seal Beach 2003). The City's General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality (City of Seal Beach 2003): Policy 2N: Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm dra in systems through construction upgrades and operation and maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate the now of sewage into the City storm drains. Policy 20: Facilitate coordination and participation by all of the jurisdictions that make up the Los Angeles and Santa Ana RWQCBs to improve water quality. Encourage the elimi nation of sewer discharges and non-point source pollution into the San Gabriel River. Policy 2S: M inimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increase in pollutant loads and flows, ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat, minimize the quantity of storm water directed to im permeable surfaces and the MS4s, and maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allows more percolation of storm water into the ground. Policy 2U: Encourage the use of water quality weUands, biofittration swales , watershed-scale retrofits , etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible. Policy 2V: Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site. Policy 2W: Establish development guidelines for areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss. 3 10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would t he project violate any water quality standards or w aste dis charge requir ements or otherwise s ubstantially d egrade s urface o r gro u ndwate r quality? Finding : L ess Than S ignificant Impact Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City's stormwater system. Construction activities such as grading could accelerate the rate of erosion and cause substantial impacts to water quality. The City 's General Plan O pen Space , Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NP DES) programs (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally , Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City's Municipal Code inc ludes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. 3-38 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Any projects that include one acre or greater of soil disturbance would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and associated NPDES regulations to ensure that potential for soil erosion is minimized. Future development associated with Project implementation would be required to comply with all relevant NPDES requirements and would be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, such as the preparation of a SWPPP, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed with existing uses; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Site with residential uses would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new residential development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City's Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City's NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may Impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin~ Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project is proposing implementation of the City's new Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which would result in the provision of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential to accommodate new housing developments to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. As IJ 3-39 Commented [SP29]: The EIR should establish the City's cunentwater supply and demand and compare that to the post-project (Increased) supply and demand. The EIR should then establish those same pre-and post data sets for all of the reasonably anticipated future projects which rely on the same water supply sources. That Q.lmulative project list would include all of the reasonably anticipated development projects in other cities being proposed to comply with the same state housing mandates. This cumulative supply/demand analysis will establish whether there will be enough water to supply our City's post-project population without having to aeate new water supply sources, such as highly costly desalination plants. Essentially, If every City that depends on MWDOC and OCWD sources expands their demand over the next 10 years, demand may likely exceed supply and lead to rationing or desalination. These Q.lmulatlve impacts need to be studied now and made completely transparent in the EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed; therefore, they do not provide substantial areas for groundwater recharge. As identified in the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City provides water to its residents and other customers using the imported potable water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). According to the 2020 UWMP, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water during its Fiscal Year 2019- 2020 and by 2045, it is projected that the water supply portfolio would change to approximately 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water (City of Seal Beach 2021). Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would result in an increased demand of potable water in the City through increased development and resulting in indirect population growth; therefore, an increased demand to groundwater supplies would result. Therefore, implementation of the Project oould result in decreased groundwater supplies resulting from increased demand, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of Impervious surfaces, In a manner which would; I. Result In substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning under the Project are already developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments. Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would utilize the existing drainage facilities in the existing surrounding areas. Additionally, Project implementation would require construction activities that oould result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. As identified above, under Impact a), the Project would be required to oomply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015 Controls for Water Quality Management outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to oomply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), induding prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City's NPDES permit requirements. Future development projects would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, including standard erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the risk of polluted runoff resulting from increased erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would indude an erosion control plan that identifies measures, such as diverting runoff from disturbed areas and treatment measures to trap sediment, to ensure there is no polluted runoff. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation m 3-40 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. Ii. Substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result In flooding on-or off-site; Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the City; however, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial increases in impervious surfaces as the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning are already developed with existing uses and located in highly urbanized areas with substantial impervious surfaces. Though the Project may not result in substantial increased in impervious surfaces resulting in increased rate and amount of surface runoff, there are existing stonn drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in flooding impacts related to stonnwater runoff. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. Ill. 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; or Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified above under Impact c.i, the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Stenn Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the DAMP. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for stonn drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements, and integration of BMPs as required by the City's NPDES pennit requirements. Compliance with these requirements would ensure both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not result in increased polluted runoff. However, as identified above under Impact c.ii, there are existing stonn drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. 341 Commented (SP30J: Thank you for including the study of storm water volume and capacity impacts In EIR Study. Please also consider Impacts to the capacity of cunent stonn water pumping systems, and the potential need to upgrade or augment those systems. Please include an analysis of future Impacts to any other stonnwater Infrastructure and drainage, taking Into account sea level rise, and rising groundwater table in tidal influenced areas. Please also consider the potential impacts on storm water ~from the Project, including addltlonal pet waste, trash, Irrigation runoff, dissolved contamlnants. suspended solids, and ffoatables. Mitigation could lndude requiring development areas and areas Impacted by development (such as parks, etc) to be equipped with managed pet waste and trash disposal facilities. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Init ial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures iv. Impede or r edirect flood flows. Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified in the City 's General Plan Safety Element. portions or the City are subject to flooding due to wave run-up which is typically caused by large swells produced by storms ay sea occurring at high tide (City of Seal Beach 2003). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to identify potential flood areas across the United States. A majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023). However, as identified by FEMA, Housing Opportuni ty Sites 11 and 12 are located withi n Zone D, an area w ith possible but undeterm ined flood hazards. Additionally. Housing Opportunity Site 1 O and a portion or Housing Opportun ity S ite 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14). or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. As some of th e Housing Opportunity Sites are located within flood risk areas, fu ture residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project may be located in areas susceptible to flooding and implementation of the Project could impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed i n the EIR. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As identified above under Impact 3.iv , a majority or the Housi ng Opportunity Sites identifi ed for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023). However, Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within Zone D, an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards and Housing Opportunity Site 1 O and a portion or Housing Opportunity Site 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Due to the City's proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City is at risk or tsunamis. The City's General Plan Safety Element identified that the risk of inundation by a tsunami appears to be low; however, if an earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of high inundation level could be expected (City of Seal Beach 2003a). As such, implementation of the Project could result in risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation resulting from flooding, tsunamis, and seiches and therefore, this potentially sign ificant impact will be furth er analyzed in the EIR. e) W ould the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable gro undwater management plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Measures identified above to ensure lhat developments have a less than s ignificant i mpact on surface and groundwater quality would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with implementation or a water quality control plan . However, as identified above under Impact b). the Project may result in potentially significant impacts related to groundwater supplies such that the Project may m 3-42 Com mented [SP31]: Please also analyze the requirements for flood insurance in the proj ect a re as j and consider whether a reas with high flood insurance I costs can realistically and justly serve middle or lower me residents. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. [Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could conflict with or obstruct Implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.i II Commented [SP32J: Cumulative impacts must be assessed from all reasonably anticipated projects served by the same water supply resources. This Includes all reasonably anticipated projects in other cities. C ITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Le ss Than LAND USE AND PLANN ING Potentially Significant Would the project Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation 18] □ adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitig atin g an environmental effect? 3.11 .1 EnvrronmentalSetting Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 18] □ □ □ The proposed Project is located in the City of Seal Beach, California , located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. II borders the City of Long Beach (Los Angeles County) to the north, the Orange County Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Project is interspersed throughout the City, which has a land area of approximately 13 square miles. The Project proposes to rezone six Housing Opportunity Srtes, proposes a new Specific Plan for one s ite, and proposed a Specific Plan Amendment for another site, in order to allow increased residential densification wh ich would result from implementation of the Housing Element Update. Additionally, the Project identified three underutilized sites and two military sites as Housing Opportunity Sites that could be redeveloped with residential uses to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. 3 .11 2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would t h e project physically d ivide an established community? Fin ding: L ess Than Signif icant Impact The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low-and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future residential development resulting from Proj ect implementation would occur w ithin areas that a re already developed and would not occur within any existing residenti al communities that could be divided. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated in a single area of the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in d ivision of establ ished communities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant , and thi s topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. I 3-44 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures b) Would the project cause a significant environmental Impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project is proposing to redevelop, or rezone identified Housing Opportunity Sites in various locations throughout the City. The Housing Element Update identifies 13 Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing. The sites are broken into two categories: underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and sites where zoning modification are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six require rezoning, two on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. Housing Opportunity Site 10 is going through its own rezoning and specific plan process with the current property owner. The rezoning effort would also indude the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHO, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites (Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, and B). The new MC/RHO mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHO-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with applicable land use plan, policy. or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT ANO ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis , and Mitigation Measures 3.12 MIN ERA L RES OU RCES Less Than MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral □ D □ resource that would be of value to the region and [SJ the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a □ D D (8) local general plan, specific plan , or other land use plan? 3 12.1 Environmental Setting Mineral resources in the City include an oil extraction at Esther Island within the tidelands, oil extraction along the Newport-Inglewood Fault on the Hellman Ranch property, and an o il lease s ite in the Seal Beach NWR (City of Seal Beach 2003). The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act o f 1975 sets forth requi rement for the state to classify all land i nto Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) that indicate the potential for mineral resources regardless of exi sting land use or ownership. However, there are no known or identified mineral resources identified within the Housing Opportunity S ites (DOC 2023b). 3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project 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? b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local g eneral plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a-b) Finding: No Impact The General Plan does not indicate th at any Housing Opportu ni ty Sites a re located w ithin an area of locally important mineral resources (City of Seal Beach 2003). Housing Opportunity Site 9 is zoned OE ; however, it i s a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. T he Project area does not encompass the City's identified resource areas: Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach NWR. The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are residential , commercial, and other underutilized areas. Housing Opportunity Site 4 is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch , and is l ocated approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. Additionally, the Housing Opportunity S ites are not currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known or designated mineral resources. Future resi dential development resulting from Project implementation would not result i n the loss of availability of any known minera l resources, nor would it have potential impacts associated w ith the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site. As such, there would be no i mpact, and this impact does not requi re further evaluation in the EIR. 3-46 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis , and Mitigation Measures 3 .13 NOISE Less Than NOISE Potentially Sig nificant Would the project result in: Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in ~ □ the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ~ □ groundbome noise level s. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport lan d use plan , or where such a pl an 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? 3.13.1 Environmental Settlng Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ - □ □ The C ity has set noise and vibration performance standards for noise sources in the C ity, which are adopted by reference from Orange County Code Section 4-6.1. City Munic ipal Code Chapter 7 .15, Noise, defines the qualitative standards used in determining a potential v iolation and provides performance standards for interi or and exterior noise by zone, based on land use (City of Seal Beach 2023e). Table 6 shows the acceptable interior and exterior noise limits by zone. Exterior noise limits in the table are based on the noise contours and compatibility guidelines provided in the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). Table 6 : City Interior and Exte rior Noise Standards Noise Zone Interior Exterio r (dBA Ldn) Time Period (dBA Ldn)' Noise Zon e 1 -Residential Properties 55 55 7:00 am to 10:00 pm Noise Zone 1 -Residential Properties 50 50 10:00 pm to 7:00 am Noise Zone 2 -Commercial Properties 65 At any time Noise Zone 3 -Industrial , 70 At any time Manufacturing and Oil Properties Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code , 2023. Notes: dB (decibels) at th e A-weig hted scale over a 24-hour, lime-weighted annual average noise level. The City's Municipal Code indicates that noise associated with construction, repai r, remodeling or grading of real property are exempt from the no ise standards if performed between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays and 8:00 am and 8:00 pm o n Saturday (City o f Seal Beach 2023e). 3-47 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures According to the General Plan Noise Element, the predominant noise source in the City is caused by automobiles and some overflights from military aircrafts. Noise sensitive receptors in the City include, but are not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, elder care facilities, or any other land use areas deemed as sensitive by the City. As part of the General Plan Noise Element, in 2002, 10 sites were selected for measurement of the existing noise environment, which proved to be highly variable, depending on the location (City of Seal Beach 2003). The time-averaged sound level in the City was in the range of approximately 59.8 to 70.3 dBA Leq. 3.13 2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Wo uld t he project res ult i n g e n eration of a substantial t emporary or p ermanent inc rea se in ambient noise levels in the vic inity of the p roject in excess of s ta nda rds established in t he l o cal g eneral plan or noise ordinanc e, o r applic able standards of other agencies? Finding: P ot entially S ignificant Impact Construction and operation resulting from future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in the generation of temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of future development projects. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may result in a substantial increase in ambient noise in excess of City standards. Therefore, this potentially s ignificant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b ) W o uld the project exp o s u re of p e rsons to or gen eration o f excessive g r o undbome v i b ration o r gro undbo rne noi se leve ls? Finding: Potentially S ignifica nt Impact Construction activities associated with development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites would generate varying degrees of groundbome v ibration and noise levels, depending on construction procedures and equipment. Construction and operation of the future residential development resulting from Proi ect implementation may result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne v ibration or groundborne no ise levels. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) For a project located within the vici nity of a private airstrip or an airpo rt land use plan, o r whe re s uch a plan has not been ado pted withi n two miles of a public ai rport or public u se airport, w o uld the project expose peo ple residi ng o r working in t h e proj ect area to ex c essive noise levels? Finding : P ot en tially S i gnificant Impact The closest public use airport to the City boundaries is Long Beach Airport, which is located approximately 5.2 miles to the northwest, a nd its airport land use plan boundaries are approximately three miles from the City boundaries. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base conducts flights over the City and noise sensitive land uses throughout the week. The Los A lamitos Joint Forces Training Base is 3-48 Commen t ed [SPBJ: Significant noise sources are motorcycles and automobiles exceeding lawful noise standards through modifications, and through Insufficient noise enforcement from the City. These noise impacts are already known to hanm humans (hearing loss, sleep loss, etc) and animals and birds (nesting , breeding and feeding habits) in our environment . Additional residents and traffic will add to car and motorcycle noise. This needs to be studied in the EIR and mitigated with accountability. Mitigation should be monitored and adjusted if needed to achieve noise mitigation goals. I Commented [SP34 J: Plea se include transportation! noise and HVAC noise. HVAC noise may be especially I important to assess and mitigate in multi -use re sidential development. ___, Commented [SP3SJ : The EIR should ensure that potential noise sources at the Los Alami tos Training Base are assessed using the types of ai rcraft and equipmen t that wi ll be used there , as well as the flying protocols tha t will be used !here. Commercial airc raft have far more restrictive noise controls, implemented through aircraft and engine design and through administrative controls • such as curfews and highly restrictive flight paths. Those noise controls are typ ically not required for th e military. _J CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures not a public airport; however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity Sites 5, 6, and 1 o. The General Plan Noise Element provides noise contours prepared by the Califomia National Guard, and several noise sensitive areas north of 1-405 were experiencing aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 dB at the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). General Plan Noise Element Figure N-5 depicts the existing noise contours of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, and Figure N-6 depicts the future noise contours. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, both in the existing and future scenarios, as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However, some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control measures to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, implementation of the Project could result in excessive noise levels for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. IJ 3-49 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less Than POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant w i th Would the project: Sig nificant Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example , 181 □ by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitaling the □ □ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3 .1'4.1 Environment.al Setting L ess Than No Significant Impact Impact I D □ ~ □ Seal Beach was i ncorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community and beachside tourist destination. The population of the City remained relatively stable from 1915 to 1944 with little more than 1,000 res idents. However, in 1944 lhe U.S. Navy acqui red half of the city to construct the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station bringing new residents to the City. The population increased to more than 7,000 people by 1954. In 1962, the Leisure World retirement community was established in the City with an estimated 9,000 senior residents. Other housing development during this time took place in the neighborhoods known as College Park East, College Park West, and Marina Hi ll; and the Surfside commun ity was annexed i nto the C ity. However, these development booms were followed by very lim ited growth in the 1970's and afterward. During the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, the City had an annual grow1h rate of 0.2 percent compared to o. 7 percent for the region as a whole . According to the City's Housing Element Update, the City had an estimated population of 24 ,992 residents in 2020 and as of January 1, 2021 , the City population was estimated to be approximately 24 ,443 residents (City of Seal Beach 2022). Add it ionally , as of January 1, 2023, the Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates identifies the City's population to be approximately 24,647 residents (DOF 2023). The housing stock in the City consists of a mix of single-fam ily and multi-family units with one mobile home park. The City's Housing Element Update identified that the most commonly occurring household size in the City is one person ( 45. 1 percent) and the second-most occurring household is of two people (35.4 percent} (City of Seal Beach 2022). As of January 1, 2023, the City is estimated to have 14,675 total housing units with a vacancy rate of 9.3 percent (DOF 2023). 3.50 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) o r indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The City is proposing a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low-and moderate-income households. The City's 2021 -2029 Ho using Element Update was adopted by City Council on February 7, 2022. Pursuant to the state's RHNA allocation , the City is required to plan for 1,243 new housing units. with 258 units allocated for very low-income households, 201 units allocated for low-income households, 239 units allocated for moderate-income households, and 545 units allocated for above moderate-income households. The City's RHNA allocation was 1,243 new housing units, and the Housing Element Update requires the City to demonstrate that ii can accommodate the RHNA allocation, as well as a n additional buffer and, therefore, the City proposes a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low-and moderate-i ncome households, as required by the state's RHNA allocation for the City. Certification of the proposed Project itself would not result in direct unplanned population growth as the Project i s proposing the rezoning and identification Housing Opportunity Sites w ithin the City to allow for more residential development potential and not the actual development of these sites. However, c ertification of the Project would lead to more parcels in the City being avail able for residential developments and could result in indirect impacts to population growth. According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). The identified Housing Opportunity Sites could accommodate a total of 1,833 ho using units at maximum buildout of each individual site. If all Housing Opportunity Sites are developed to the maximum allowable density with residential uses to provide an additional 1,833 housing units, it would result in a population growth of approximately 3,354 residents . According to the DOF's population estimates , the City had an est imated population of 24 ,647 as of January 2023 (DOF 2023). Therefore, the 3 ,354 residents that w ould be generated by maximum buildout of the Project would result in a 12 percent increase in population over current conditions. The SCAG identifies growth forecast projections for each county and city under jurisdiction of the SCAG . The SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportati on Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted on September 3, 2020, inc luded a demographics and growth forecast technica l report that identifies the projected growth for each county and city under the jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG's growth forecast identifies the anticipated population for Seal Beach by the year 2045 to be 25,400 residents (SCAG 2020). As the City's current population is identified at 24 ,647 residents and implementation of the Proj ect would result in an increase of 3 ,354 residents, the projected increase in resid ents resulting from implementation of the Project would be greater than the projected growth for the City. Project implementation would be in compliance w i th General Plan and Housing Element Update policies to provide for balanced housing types and affordability levels and provide access to affordable housing to lower-income households. Additionally, th e Project would ensure that the City is in compliance with the 3 -51 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures state's RHNA allocation for the City. However, as the Project would result in an increase in the number of residents above the projected future residential population for the City, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in potentially significant impacts related to population growth. Therefore, this topic will be further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact The Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning and the identified underutilized sites include a variety of uses, including commercial, retail, industrial, storage, residential, and military. The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City but would result in changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the site. Project implementation would not require relocation of existing developments, as it would not directly lead to development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites. However, if the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified for new development or redevelopment on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur. Individual development and redevelopment of the sites may result in displacement of existing people or housing if the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are currently developed with existing residential uses. However, the Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 11 3-52 CIT Y OF SE AL BEACH HOUSING E LEMENT AND ZONING CODE U PDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .15 PUBLIC SERVIC ES Les s Than PUBLIC SERVICES Potenti ally Significant Significant with Would the project: impact Mitigation In corpo ration Less Than No Significant Impac t Impa ct a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered gove(Tlmental fa cili ti es, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios , response times, or other performance objectives f or any of the public services i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other Public Facilities? 3 15.1 Environmental Setting Fire Prote ctio n ~ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ OCFA provides fire protection and emergency medical services in the C ity . OCFA also serves 23 cities within the County and all unincorporated areas. The OCFA protects over 1,984,758 r esidents f rom its 77 fire statio ns located throughout the County. OCFA Reserve Firefighter s work 1 o stations throu ghout Orange County (OCFA 2023). The OCFA 2022 Statistical Annua l Report iden tified that the department employed a total of 1,556 staff for variou s positions throughout the OCFA. In 2022, OCFA responded to 175,457 incidents. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the fire response zones for OCFA Fire Stations 63 and 64. Police Protectio n Police services for the Proj ect would be provided by the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD). SBPD is responsible for updating t he Emergency Services Plan, incorporating a model citizen response model , evacuation plans, emergency aid, comprehensive communications components, and a coordination program with other local government agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies (Ci ty of Seal Beach 2003). Sc hools The City is part of the Los A lamitos Unified School District (Los Al USO) which includes K-12 education. With in Los A l USD, there are nine school campuses serving more than 9 ,500 students in its jurisdiction. There is only one Los A l USO school w ithin the City, McGaugh Elementary School. 3.53 ~mented (SP36J : This should be characterized as l I :C~~ Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation ·. Other public facilities should include: public bathrooms/restrooms, public drinking water foun tains, bike paths , parki ng, surfing areas, fishing areas, _j l walkways . CITY OF SEA L BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND Z ONING COD E UPDA TES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis , and Mitigation Measures Parks The City offers built and natural trails, developed parks, beaches, and golf courses as some of the recreational opportunities in the City. The public pa rk system in the City includes mini, neighborhood, community, and major/regional parks that a re d ifferentiated by scale, population served , and amenities. The City 's Park standard is based on guidance provi ded by California Government Code Section 666477 , referred to as th e Quimby Act, and the C ity has a park standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. In addition to various parks, the shoreline of Seal Beach is considered to be of regional significance. Othe r Public Facilities -Librari e s The Orange County Library operates 33 libraries within the County . There are two libraries w ithin the City, including Orange County library Seal Beach Branch, located approximately 0 .15 mile south of the Housing Opportunity Site 8, and Leisure World Library , located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2. The City's General Plan Safety Element incl udes the following goals and policies related to publ ic services (City o f Seal Beach 2003): Policy 1 C: Continue to maintain the Emergency Operations Center (EOG) and provide for its adequate support and staffing, including the acquisition and maintenance of a mobile Incident Command Support veh icle for emergency response . Pol icy 1 L: Evaluate the location of all public facilities necessary for emergency response in relation to the City's current Hazard Maps and the level of risk associated with their locations, and move facilities located in high or extreme hazard areas to areas less subj ect to hazards, if feasible . Policy 1 M: Ensure th at any new public facilities are designed and located in such a manner as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce the utility of the facility following a disaster. Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven m inutes or less. 315.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project r esult in substantial ad verse p hys i cal i m pact s associated with the provis i o n o f new o r p hys i c ally altered governmental facilities, need f o r new o r physically altere d governmental facilities, the cons truction o f whic h c ould ca use s ig nific ant e nv ironmental impacts, in o rder to maintain acceptable service r atios, r espons e times , or oth er perfo rmance o b j ectives f o r any o f t he p ublic services: i. Fire Protection? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact 3-54 CITY OF SEAL BEAC H HOUSING ELEM ENT A ND ZONI NG CODE UPDA T ES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and M itigation Measures The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by provid ing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not d irectly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However. implementation of the Project would result in facilitation of up to 1,833 new housing units being developments in the City and would resu lt in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services. The increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services could result in impacts to fire services and facilities , including response times or the need fo r new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Therefor e. this impact is potentially sign ificant and will be further a nalyzed in the EIR. ii. Police Protect ion? Finding: Potentially Si gnificant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However, implementation of the Proj ect would result in faci litation of up to 1,833 new hOusing units being developments in the City and would r esult in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for police services. The increase in demand for police services could result in impacts to police services and facilities. including response times or t he need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, this impact i s potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. iii. Schoo ls? Finding : Less Th an Significant Impact Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the Ci ty to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low-and moderate-income households . As stated in the Housing Element Update: Stale law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and fac ilities such as schools. parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be deri ved. Development fees will vary from project-to-project depending on the specific characteristics. Table IV-8 summarizes the development fees for typical residential projects. Currently , a majority of the City's K-12 student population needs to travel outside the City to attend school. and Los Alamitos USO is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos USO schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios (Los A lamitos Un ified School District 2023). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would a lso be required to comply 3-55 r Co mmented [SP37J : The EIR should analyze potential impacts to response times and evacuation times. due to increased demand and increased traffic-rel ated travel constraints. It should also analyze any resulting potential impacts to public health and safety. Cumulative analysis also needs to be considered for all reasonably anticipated project utilizing the same fire protection and emergency services or utilizing the same traffic-constrained travel access. The EIR also needs to identify avoidance and mitigation measures for those impacts. Commented [SP38J: Please analyze impacts to response times and evacuation t imes and the resulting potential impacts to pubic safety. and mitigation. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. T herefore, with the payment or required rees and incorporation or General P lan policies, the Project would not result in the need ror new or physically altered school facilities , and im pacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Parks? Finding : Potentially Significant Impact Certification or the Project itself would not lead to construction or new reside ntial developments in the C ity. F uture housing developments faci litated by the Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occur incrementally as market conditions allow and at th e d iscretion or the individual property owner. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with existing park facilities. Future housing development racilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increase in demand for parks throughout the City . Though the increase in demand ror park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to increase parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. v . Other Public Facilities -Libraries? Finding: L ess Than Significant Impact Project i mplementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. T hese additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase i n demand on public facilities. The Leisure Worl d Library located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result or future P roject implementation. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with General Plan policies that would ensure adequate library services are provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need ror new or physically alte red public facilities , and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 3-56 Commented [SP39J : Mitigation sho uld be required--;;;;:-1 developers to preven t the current level of recreation •• I from being significantly diminished. Mitigation could be aimed at avoiding degradation of existing recreation resources , creating additional sh areable recreation resources (such as parks, parklets, trails, bike lan es. shared bike/car lanes). improving existing recreation resources. and improving access to existing recreation . such as through bike paths and wa lkways. Connecting j existing and new public open space and recreational areas should be a goal or mi tiga ti on. The po tential for the Project's increasing population density to impact the availability and safety of surfing resources should also be studied. Commented [SP40J : The find ing should be "Potentially Significant• or "Less than Significant with Mitigation Applied", in part because "other public facilities· should not be limited to "libraries·. "Other public facil ities" should Include restrooms. public water j fountains. walkways. bikeways and bike paths. surfi ng areas. fis hing areas, where potentially significant impacts seem likely. CITY OF S EAL B EACH HOUSI N G ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE U PDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.16 RECREATION Less Than RECREATION Potentially Significant Significant with Wo uld th e proj ect Impa ct Mitigation Incorporation a) Increase the use of existing neighbomood and reg ional parks or other recreational facili ties 0 D such th at su bstantial physical detertoration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational faci lities or require the construction or expansion of recreatio nal 0 D facilities which might ha ve an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.16.1 Environmental Setting Less Th an No Sig nificant Impact Impact D D □ D Open space or outdoor recreation is defined by the City as land that is set aside for nei ghborhood, community or r egional parks, beaches, special use parks or facilities, greenbelts, and open space corridors (City of Seal Beach 2003). Sunset Marina Park and the shoreline of Seal Beach are some of the recreational areas located within the City that provide various types of recreational activities for the City's residents and adjacent cities residents can utilize. The City offers approximately 77.3 acres or parks and open space for va ri ous recreational activities (Seal Beach 2003). 3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would t he proj e ct increase the use of existing n ei ghborhood and regional parks or other r ecreationa l f acilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would o c cur o r be accele r ated ? b) Woul d the p roject include recr eational fac i lities or require the const ructi on o r exp ansio n o f recr eational facilities which might have a n adverse physical effect o n the enviro nme nt? a-bl Finding: Potentially Signi fic ant Impact Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City . None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with exi sting park facilities and therefore, individual developments proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites would not result in conversion of parks or recreational facilities to residential uses. Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increa se in demand for parks throughout the City . Though the increase in demand for park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are di spersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to incr ease parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 r esidents. The Project could increase the use of existing parks a nd recreational cities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be I 3-57 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures accelerated and may require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. II 3-58 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.17 TRANSPORT ATIO N Less Than TRANSPORTATION Potentially Significant Would the project Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy ~ D addressing the circula tion systems, induding transit, roadway , bicyde and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict wi th or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines ~ D Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? C) Substantially inctease hazards due lo a geometri c design realure (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous □ □ intersection(s) or incompatible uses (e.g . rarm equipment))? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ 3.17 1 Environmental Setting Les s Than No Significant Impact Impact □ D □ □ ~ □ ~ □ SB 743 caused revisions to the CEOA Guidelines which established new criteria for determining the signi ficance of transportation impacts, so th at level of service or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion would not be the sole basis fo r determining significant impacts under CEQA. The revised CEQA Guidelines utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric to evaluate the s ignificance of transportation related impacts for development projects , land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. T he Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided a Technica l Advisory (December 2018) that recommends specific V MT s ignificance threshol ds th at may constitute a significant transportation impact and lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply th eir own thresholds of significance. OPR recommends use of a per-capita measurement of VMT for C EQA analysis based on average VMT per resident for evaluation of residential development. The City has similarly adopted thresholds of significance consistent with the OPR recommendation. Certain types of development, such as development within a one-hal f-mile of an existing major transit stop can generally be presumed to have a l ess than significant impact. Regional and local access roads in the City include SR 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), SR 22 (Garden G rove Freeway), 1-405 (San Diego Freeway), Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Boulevard, Main Street, and Marina Drive. OCTA provides public transportation services on Bus Routes 1, 42 and 60. Senior transportation programs are provided by California Yellow Cab, and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation is a lso provided to provide access for routine medical care (Cit y of Seal Beach 20231). There are also multiple pedestrian and bicycle paths in the City, and the General Plan Circulation Element includes goals, objectives and policies related to improved bicycle and pedestrian rou tes (C ity of Seal Beach 2003a), as follows: Goal: Provide a citywide system of safe , efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school and recreational use. 3.59 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures • Objective: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to citywide standards and practices. • Policies: Develop citywide standards for construction and maintenance of bikeways and pedestrian walkways. Develop and adopt a planned bikeway system that is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of County-wide Bikeways, and other adopted Master Plans, to assure that local bicycle routes will be compatible with routes or neighboring jurisdictions. Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities. Where appropriate, require proposed developments adjacent to proposed bikeway routes to indude bicycle paths or lanes in their street improvement plans and to construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition of approval. Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation. Require plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to give priority to providing continuity and dosing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network. Develop programs that encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities. railroads. and streets wherever possible for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians. Develop a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan that facilitates pedestrian traffic in major activity areas. Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Require the installation of sidewalks with all new roadway construction and significant reconstruction of existing roadways. Develop a plan and pursue funding for bicyde support facilities and cyding education/information programs. 3-60 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 317.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with a program p lan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems, including transit, roadway, bicyc l e and pedestri an faci lities? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in demand for public lransil, bicycle. and pedes trian systems, which would require the improvement and expansion of the c irculation system, in addition to what was evaluated in the Housing Element Update. As such, an evaluation of the policies addressing potential impacts to these facilities is required, and this potentially significant impact wi ll be furth er analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict w i th or be i nconsistent with CEQA Guidelines S ection 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Project would change the City's zoning code to allow for increased and densified residential development at the i dentified Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city . Traffic generated by future Project implementation, in additional to regional growth, could contribute to already congested traffic conditions in and around the City. In a=rdance with the City's VMT gui delines, the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), or another similar model as approved by the City Engineer, would be used to evaluate the Project's potential impact on VMT. As such , a n evaluation of Project consi stency with the applicable VMT threshol ds is required , and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g ., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., f arm equipment)? Fi nding: Less Than Significant Impact As with the General Plan, Project implementation would result in the a lteration and intensification of existing land uses in the city. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway al ig nments, intersecti on geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with a pplicable roadway design guidelines, as w ell as the Caltrans Roadway Desi gn Manual, in addi tion to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system . Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the El R. 3-61 1 Commented (SP41): Seal Beach is already l anomalously 'under pa~ by not providing protect ed painted bike lanes along ils sectio n of PCH, even while lhe cities lo the north and 10 the south of us have long since done so . The Project will significantl y increase traffic and lums ( a specific danger lo cyclists since I automobile right hand lums bisect bike lanes and frequently hil cyclists) through this already crowded section of PCH. This Impact should be studied fu rther I and mitigation should be considered, including adding tho se missing bike lanes on PCH and creating additional dedicated bike lanes and/or share lanes on other streets lhroughoul lhe Cily l o maintain and i mprove bike-ability, safety, and bike access connectedness. Other miligalion cou ld include cycling education for cyclists and drivers, signage, lane painting , and enforce ment of distracted driving. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSIN G ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDA TES Initial Study Environmental Setting , A nalysis, and Mitigation Measures d) Wo uld the project result i n i nadequate emerg ency access? Find i n g : Less Th an Sig n i ficant Impact As stated above, Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing la nd uses in the City which could result in inadeq uate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project a re not designed to City standards a nd requirements. As such , future residential development re sulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, a nd traffic contro l features, whic h would be made in a=rdance w ith all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore , with adherence to all app licable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in i nadequate emergency access, and impacts woul d be less than significant. As such , this to pic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 3-62 Com mented (SP42J: I disagree with this finding. 7 There have been recent development projects (including PCH and 2nd) that have significan tl y impacted travel times along critical emergency access rou tes. Those impacts have been historically underestimated and/or not made transparent during project review and approval processes. Impacts have been poorly mitigated and monitored; basically I unaccounted for. We cannot rely solely on the same fail ing administrative policies and procedures to I remedy the increasingly dangerous travel time delays and driving safety that we are all witnessing in our community. The risk for a critical and significant impact to emergency access and driving safety needs to be studied and made completely transparent to th e public and subject to public review in the EIR. In addition , th e identification and mitigation or cumulati ve traffic delays ~ be a critical part of the EIR. CITY OF SEA L BEA CH HOUS ING ELEMENT AND ZONING CO D E UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, An alysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESO URCES Less Than TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Signific ant with Would the project: Impact Mitigatio n Incorporatio n Less Than No S lgnifican Impact t Impact a) VVould the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value lo a California Native American tri be, and that i s: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources , or in a local register of ~ □ □ □ historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to cri teria set forth in subdivision of Public Resources Code □ Section 5024 .1. In applying the crite ria set forth (8: □ □ in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Nat ive American tribe? 3 18 1 Envlronmentc.ll Setting According to the Ci ty 's General Plan , prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrieli no-Native Americans, who inhabited much of northern Orange County. The Gabrielinos were known for high population densities, complex social organization, and highly developed maritime economies. The Gabrielinos were in an area that extended from Ventura County to the north and San Bernadine County to the east. The tribes maintained a com mo n language, material culture, and ceremon ial and politi cal systems. T he Gabrielino community of Motuuchey was located in Seal Beach. In addition to the Gabrielino, ii is understood that the Juaneno Nativ e Americans, the neighborin g tri be to the south, al so frequented the Seal Beach area (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the Project cause a s ubsta ntial adverse change in the s ignificance of a tribal c ultural resour ce, defined in Public Resources Code sec tion 21074 as either a s ite, featu re, place, cultural l andscape t hat is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of t he l andscape, sacred p lac e, or object with cultural value t o a Ca lif o rnia Native A m eri c an tribe, and that is: IJ i. Listed o r eligible for listi ng in the CRHR , or in a local r egister o f hi storical resources as defined in Publ ic Resourc es Code sectio n 502 0.1 (k), or i i, A res ource determined by the lead age ncy, in its d iscretion and supported by s ubstantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria s et forth in subdivision of 3-63 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? 1-11) Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The County, as the CEQA Lead Agency, will consult with appropriate tribes with the potential for interest in the region. Based on this consultation, it will be identified if the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in an area having the potential for tribal cultural resources. SB 18 states: "Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government's jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.• In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and SB 18, the City provided notice to the appropriate Native American Tribes on November 15, 2023, inviting them to participate and consult with the City through its AB 52 and SB 18 Native American outreach efforts. The results of the outreach and consultation effort will be described in the EIR. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be evaluated further in the EIR. IJ 3-64 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than UTILITIE S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Sig nificant Significant with Would the project Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Require or result in th e relocation or construction or new or expanded water , wastewater treatment, or stormwaler drainage, electric power, natural gas, or ~ D telecommunicalions facilitie s, lhe construction or relocation or which cou ld ca use sig nificant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supply available to serve the project and reasonably forese eabl e fu ture ~ D development during norm al, dry and multiple dry years? c) Re sult in a determination by lhe wa stewater lreatment provider which se rves or may serve lhe project that it [8: D has adequale capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to lhe provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess or State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity or local D D infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and D □ redu ction sta tutes and reg ulation s related to soli d waste? 3 19.1 Environmental Setting Less Than Slgnifican t Impact D D D ~ 129 The City's current population is served by existing utility and service systems, as described below. Wale r No Impact D D D D D The City a retail water supplier that provides water for its residents and their customers using the imported water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, MWDOC and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed b y the OCWD. The City's Water Division operates three active groundwater wells, an active service connection with MWDOC, emergency interconnections w ith other utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations, four disinfection sites, approximately 680 hydrants and manages 7 4 .8-mile w ater m ains system with about 5,346 service connections. W ater use within the City's service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,4 82 acre-feet (A F) for potable use. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City's water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). In Fi scal Year 2019-20, the Ci ty relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water. There is currently no recycled water available for u se within th e C ity's service area (City of Seal Beach 2021 ). 3-65 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures Wastewater The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County Sanitation Distrid (OC San) for treatment and disposal. The sewer system service area encompasses about 1,705 acres and indudes approximately 34 miles of sewer main, serving about 5,000 customers. The wastewater colleded in the City's system is conveyed to OC San's extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (MGD) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD's Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. In 2020, 2,520 AF of wastewater was collection from the City (City of Seal Beach 2021). Stonnwater Drainage The City has two drainage systems -the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is deaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. Much of the City's runoff drains into the Navel Weapons Base with the remainder split between the Pacific Ocean, Coyote Creek, and the San Gabriel River (City of Seal Beach 2023d). Solid Waste The City contracts with Republic Services to provide trash, recycling, and green waste collection for all City residents and commercial businesses (City of Seal Beach 2023c). other Utillties Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. 3-66 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting , Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainag e, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the c onstruction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low-and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Future housing developments facilitated by th e Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occu r incrementally as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owner. Under im p lementation of the Proj ect, redevelopment of underutilized sites could acccmmodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total or approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide approximately 1,833 additional housing un its. The addition of approximately 1,833 additional housing units would result in increased demand to water, wastewater, stormwater. and other utilities and its facilities . T his increase in demand could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities and cou ld result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Would the project have sufficient water supply available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project could re su lt in approxi mately 1,833 ad ditional housing units in the City which would increase demand for water supply. The Project would requ ire an evaluation of water supply needs, which would include an analysis of the sufficiency of available and new water supplies to serve th e Project, in addition to reasonably foreseeable development. As such, this potentially significant impact wi ll be evaluated in the EIR. c) Wo uld the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has adequate capacity to s erve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the Project could result in approximately 1,833 additional housing units in the City which would increase demand for wastewater treatment. This increased demand could result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider that it does not have capacity to serve the projected demand and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. EJ 3 -67 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures d) Would the project generate solid waste In excess of State or local standards, or In excess of the capacity of local Infrastructure, or otherwise Impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact According to CalRecycle, in 2022 the City's residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually (CalRecycle 2022). According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide approximately 1,833 additional housing units to the City, the 1,833 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,354 people. Using the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21, 130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of2B,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually. This is not anticipated to result in significant impacts, as buildout of the additional residential units would take place over time and solid waste generated would increase incrementally over time as the additional residential units are constructed. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact Exiting regulations related to solid waste include AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 341, AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991, California Green Buildings Standards Code, and the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. The Project would be required to adhere to all relevant existing statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including waste diversion and reduction measures adopted by the City. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation are constructed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation In the EIR. IJ 3-69 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3.20 WIL DFIRE Less Than WILDFIRE Potentially Significant Would the project: Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Slgnlllcan t Impac t If localed in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response □ □ □ plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and olher faclors, exacerbale wildfire risks, and thereby expose project □ □ □ occupants to pollutant concenlrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? C) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure {such as roads , fuel breaks, emergency □ □ □ water sources, power lines, or other utilities) tha t may exacerbate fire risk or that may resull in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose peopl e or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or □ □ □ landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope i nstability, or drainage changes? 3.20.1 l:nvironmental Setting No Impact [8] ~ [8] [8] The City and Project area are surrounding by urban and developed lands. The neighborhood of College Park West is identified by the City as a community of risk to wildfire as a result of its isolation, proximity to open space areas, topographic conditions, and regional wind patterns (City of Seal Beach 2003). The Housing Opportunity Sites and surrounding vicinities are not identified as communities at risk and do not contain land designated as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2023a). The Housing Opportunity Sites are located withi n the j urisdiction of the OCFA Division 1. The majority of the City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located within a Local Responsibility Area, as much of the City has been identified as have a low risk for wildfire. Furthermore, Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) are located in the central portion of the City, encompass ing Seal Beach NWR, Joint Forces T raining Base, and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (CAL FIRE 2023c). The City's General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to w ildfire hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003): Policy 1A; Periodically review and update the Emergency Operations Plan to ensure effective implementation of the Plan during an emergency. Incorporate into the Plan as appropriate; o a citizen response model using a ne ighborhood coordinate system, such as a Neighborhood Watch program: 3-70 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures o a comprehensive communications component that maximizes public emergency coordination, response and resource allocation; o a program of coordination with county, regional, state, and federal emergency agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies and their plans; and o a program of coordination with the police. • Policy 1 B: Amend the Emergency Operations Plan to include evacuation plans, and include provisions for emergency shelter, transportation, clothing, food and medical aid, identifying the facilities and persons within the community that may be utilized in an emergency and communicating this information to neighborhood associations and the American Red Cross. • Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less. • Policy 4B: Educate and inform the public on fire safety, especially regarding landscaping installation and maintenance in urban areas, to further protect the community and the environment from unnecessary fire hazards. • Policy 4C: Enhance the ability of all structures within the City to resist wildland and structural fires throughout ongoing, appropriate and cost-effective changes to the City's Zoning, Building and Fire Codes and standards. • Policy 40: Work with the Water Department and OCFA to analyze the supply and delivery of the water system for fire fighting use to help identify and correct deficiencies. • Policy 4E: Develop and ear1y warning system of Santa Ana wind fire danger to alert the public of possible precautions or safety measures that may be taken during those critical times. • Policy 4F: As a condition of new development, require private responsibility for development and maintenance necessary new fire flow water lines and hydrants in accordance with the recommendations of OCFA. • Policy 4G: Encourage property owners to create defensible space surrounding their homes, including providing access for firefighters, maintaining planting and outdoor areas, and minimizing combustible structures. m 3-71 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3 .20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency res ponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding : No Impac t Project implementat ion would not occur within a SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection o f City residents in times of emergency and to i dentify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comp ly with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA's Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Proj ect implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City's Emergency Operations Plan and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to p ollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the project requi re the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powe r lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Would the project expose people or structures to s ignificant ris ks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? b-d) Fi nding : No Impact The Proj ect proposes rezoning program to a=mmodate the planning of low-and moderate-income housing, as required by the state's RHNA allocation for the City. As Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ, the Project would entail the redevelopment and rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update. Future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a w ide range or state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be require d to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA Community Risk Reduction Division would minimize impacts resulting rrom Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development wou ld not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding . Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, Project m 3-72 Commented (SP43J : Th e potential impact to I emergency response and evacuation rrom traffic delays due to increased congestion needs to be evaluated in th e EI R, made transparent lo th e public, receive publi c review. Potentially significant impacts should be avoided or mitigated. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures implementation would not exacerbate fire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks, and there would be no impact. Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for additional housing and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development. Associated infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with City and County requirements and regulations and would be required to adhere to the measures in the individual requirements for new infrastructure to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. 3-73 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZON ING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis , and Mitigation Measures 3 .21 MANDATORY FIN DINGS OF SIG N IF ICANCE Less Than MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Would the project: Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Have lhe potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substan ti ally 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 lhe 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? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative 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)? c) Have environmental effects wh ich will cause substa nti al adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ~ □ indirectly? 3.21 1 Environmental Impact Analysis Less Th an No Significant Impact Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ a) Would the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habi tat of a fi sh 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact Project implem entation would resu lt in potenlially significant impacts to biological and cultural resources , and these impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. Consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 is currently being conducted and has not yet been completed at the time of this document. As such, impacts related to tribal cultural resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the i ncremental effects o f a Project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other c u rrent Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related projects, has the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts when the independent impacts of the 3-74 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures proposed Project and the impacts of related projects combine to create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone. A list of the related projects or growth projections will be developed for the EIR. The potential for the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects and their cumulative contributions to environmental impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. The cumulative impacts addressed in the EIR will be the same as the individual resource areas w hich w ill be evaluated in the EIR. The extent and significance of potential cumulative impacts resulting from the combined effects of the proposed Project plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will be evaluated in the El R. c) Would the project have e nvironmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact As described in this Ini tial Study , implementation of the proposed Project could re sult in impacts to human beings resulting from potential air quality and GHG emissions, noise, tran sportation, a nd water quality impacts. Therefore , further analysis of these potential impacts is required, and potentia l impa cts will be evaluated in the EIR. 3-75 ,---- Commented [SP44]: Cu mu lativ e impacts lha l need lo be iden tifi ed, evaluated , an d avoided or mitigated in the EIR include, al minimum, all of the following: Noise, Traffic, Emergency Response nme, Evacuati on nme, Wa l er Demand and Supply, Electric Power Demand and Supply , Recreationa l Resou rces , Sewer Capacity. Stormwaler Management Capacity, Flood Prevention I and Flood Prevention Infrastructure Cap acity. _J CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study Report Preparation 4.0 REPORT PREPARATION 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS Preparers Trevor Macenski Senior Principal; Principal in Charge Anna Radonich Principal Environmental Planner, Project Manager Emi ly Medler Environ mental Planner Jennife r Webster Environmental Planner Kaela Johnson Environmental Planner, GIS 4-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References 5.0 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. California Important Farmland Finder. https-J/maps.conservat,on.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023b. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Class ification. https://maps.conservation.cagov/cgs/informat1onwarehouse/mdex.html?mao=mlc. Accessed August 2023. Cal ifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. NCCP Plan Summary -Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP -Natural Commun ity and Land Cover Types. httos .//nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=65795&mhne. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. NCCP Plan Summary -Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/H CP. https://wildlife.ca.qov/Conservalion/Planning/NCCP/Plans/OCTA. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023a Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. June 15, 2023. htlps://calfire - rorestry.maps.arcgis.comiapps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d43 1 a42b242b29d89597ab693d 008. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023b. Forest Practice Watershed Mapper v2. https://eg,s.fire .ca.gov/Watershed Mapper/. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023c. State Responsibi lity Area (SRA) Viewer. httos.//calfire- forestry maps. arcgis comiapps/webappv,ewer/index html?1d=468717 e399fa4238ad86861638765 ce1 . Accessed August 2023. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022 . Disposal Rate Calculator -Seal Beach, 2022 . https://www2.calrecycle.ca .gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator. Accessed August 2023. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. 2018 Power Content Label Submitted by Southern California Edison, Version July 2019 . https://www.energy.ca .gov/s1tes/de faulUfiles/2020- 01 /2018 PCL Southern California Edison odf. Accessed August 2023. Cal ifornia Energy Commi ssion (CEC). 2023a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http //www ecdms energy ca.qov/elecbyutil aspx. Accessed August 2023. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023b. Gas Consumption by Entity. hllp.//www ecdms.energy.ca .gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed August 2023. 5-1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigations. https //maps.conservat ion.ca gov/cgSIEQZApp/app/. Accessed August 2023. California Public Utilities Commission. 2023. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. https:/lwww.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/. Accessed August 2023. City or Seal Beach. 2003. City or Seal Beach General Plan , December 2003. https.//www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2013. Zoning Map (Index) -Updated March 2013. https:/lwww. sealbeachca.qov/Portals/0/Documents/Main lndexForZoning Maps 2013. pdf. Accessed August 2023 . City of Seal Beach. 2017. Emergency Operations Plan. https:llwww.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/O/Documents/Basic%20Plan%20September%20Combined %20(Final3%20111417).pdf?ver=201 8-02-03-023025-607. Accessed August 2023. City of Sea l Beach. 2021 . 2020 Urban Water Management Plan , Final Draft, June 2021 . https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/O/Documents/Public%20Wor1<s/Sea l%20Beach%202020%2 OUWMP %20FINAL %20DRAFT-2021 05 27 pdf?ver-2021-06-01-161424-263. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2022. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housi ng Element-Adopted February 7 , 2022. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/O/Documents/6th%20Seal%20Beach%20Hous1nq %20Elem ent Adopted-compressed.pdf?ver-2022-02-10-091549-117. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023a. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element -Updated August 24 , 2023 . https://www.sealbeachca .gov/Portals/O/Documents/Housing%20Element/SB Housing- Element Draft%20Aug%202023%20Introduction%20and%20Needs%20Assessment%20Redline pdf?ver=2023-08-24-140025-913×tamp=1692911346061 . Accessed October 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023b. City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan , Draft May 2023. https.//www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/O/Documents/Seal%20Beach%20LUP DRAFT%20compre ssed.pdf?ver-2023-05-09-154143-560. Accessed August 2023. C ity of Sea l Beach. 2023c. City of Seal Beach Publ ic Works Department -Maintenance Operations Division -Trash & Recycling . https.//www sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Publlc- Works/Maintenance-Operations#trash recycling. Accessed August 2023. C ity of Seal Beach. 2023d. City of Seal Beach Public Works Department -Storm Water & NPDES. https:/lwww.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Storm-Water-NPDES. Accessed August 2023. City of Seal Beach. 2023e. Seal Beach , California Municipal Code. https:/llibrary.gcode.us/lib/seal beach caipub/munic,pal code. Accessed August 2023. IJ 5-2 CITY OF SEAL BE ACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References City of Seal Beach. 2023f. Transportation Services. https://www sealbeachca.qov/City- Services/Transportation-Services. Accessed August 2023. California Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2023. https //dof ca.gov/forecasting/demoqraph1cs/est1mates/e-5-population-and-housing-est1mates-for- c1t1es-count1es-and-the-state-2020-2023/. Accessed August 2023. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https //msc fema.gov/portal/search. Accessed August 2023. Los Alamitos Unifies School District. (2003). Our District. https //www.l osal.org/our-distnct. Accessed August 2023. Los Angeles County. 2004. Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan. https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-contenVuploads/2022/10/Los-Angeles-County-A,rport-Land-Use- Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2023. Orange County. 2013. County of Orange General Plan -Resources Element, December 2013. https://ocds.ocpubl1cworks .com/s 1tes/ocpwocds/files/1mport/data/files/40235.pdf. Accessed August 2023. Orange County. 2023. Orange County Landbase. https //www.ocg1s.com/ocpw/landrecords/. Accessed August 2023. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023. Orange County Fire Authority website -Member Cities. https//ocfa .org/AboutUs/PartnerCi ties aspx. Accessed August 2023. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker database. https://qeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker. Accessed August 2023. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 6" Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. 2021 https://scag .ca.gov/sites/mai n/files/fileattachments/6'" cycle final rhna allocation plan 070121 . pdf?1646938785 . Accessed September 2023. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 6'" Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 2023. https:/tscag.ca.gov/rhna. Accessed September 2023. Southern Cali fornia Edison (SCE). 2019. Southern California Edison's Service Area. https //newsroom edison.corn/internal red,recvcrns ,pressroom corn.s3.amazonaws corn/166/files /20193/SCE%20Service%20Area%20Fact%20Sheet Ver2 04252019.pdf. Accessed August 2023. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2023. Company Profile. https://www.socalgas com /about- us/cornpany-profile . Accessed August 2023. 5-3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study References United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Seal Bea ch National Wildlife Refuge. hllps://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach. Accessed August 2023. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. Se al Beach National Wildlife Refuge -Species. hllps./lwww.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach/species. Accessed August 2023. 5-4 Appendix B Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Assessment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Assessment City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project February 28, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 555 Capitol Mall Suite 650 Sacramento CA 95814 () Stantec AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT i Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................III 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 1.1 1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................ 1.2 2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2.7 2.1 PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2.7 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2.7 2.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Existing Conditions ......................................... 2.9 3.0 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 3.10 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................... 3.10 3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology .......................................................................... 3.10 3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................................................ 3.10 3.1.3 Attainment Status ...................................................................................... 3.11 3.1.4 Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................... 3.14 3.1.5 Odors ........................................................................................................ 3.15 3.1.6 Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................................. 3.15 3.1.7 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................. 3.17 3.2 REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................... 3.18 3.2.1 Federal ...................................................................................................... 3.18 3.2.2 State ......................................................................................................... 3.18 3.2.3 Regional .................................................................................................... 3.21 3.2.4 Local ......................................................................................................... 3.22 4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS ................................................................................................. 4.23 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................... 4.23 4.1.1 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................... 4.23 4.1.2 Global Warming Potential .......................................................................... 4.25 4.1.3 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................... 4.25 4.1.4 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................. 4.26 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................... 4.26 4.2.1 State ......................................................................................................... 4.26 4.2.2 Regional .................................................................................................... 4.31 4.2.3 Local ......................................................................................................... 4.31 5.0 ENERGY .................................................................................................................... 5.33 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................... 5.33 5.2 REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................... 5.33 5.2.1 Federal ...................................................................................................... 5.33 5.2.2 State ......................................................................................................... 5.36 5.2.1 Local ......................................................................................................... 5.37 ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT ii 6.0 METHODOLOGY AND MODELING PARAMETERS ................................................. 6.38 6.1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND GHG EMISSION METHODS ...................................... 6.38 6.1.1 Modeling Assumptions .............................................................................. 6.38 6.2 ENERGY CALCULATION METHODS ........................................................................ 6.39 7.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 7.1 7.1 CEQA GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... 7.1 7.1.1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................... 7.1 7.2 AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 7.2 8.0 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................ 8.15 8.1 CEQA GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 8.15 8.1.1 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................ 8.15 8.2 GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 8.15 10.0 ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 10.8 10.1 CEQA GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 10.8 10.2 ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 10.8 11.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 11.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Housing Element Update Buildout Assumptions ......................................................... 2.8 Table 2. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................. 3.12 Table 3. Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin ........................................................ 3.13 Table 4. Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023) ......................................................... 3.14 Table 5. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 7.1 Table 6. Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions ................ 7.6 Table 7. Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) ................................ 7.7 Table 8. Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) ..................................... 7.8 Table 9. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ...................................................... 8.16 Table 10. Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated) ............................ 8.16 Table 11. Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) ................................ 8.17 Table 12. Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .................................................................................................................. 8.5 Table 12. Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies .................................................................................................................. 8.6 Table 13. Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................................... 10.9 Table 14. Project Operations – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption ................................... 10.11 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: CalEEMod Modeling Results Appendix B: Energy Calculations ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT iii ABBREVIATIONS μg/m3 AB ACBMs AQMP BTU C. immitis CAAQS CAFE CalEEMod CARB CCAA CEC CEQA CH4 City CO CO2 CPUC DPM DRRP EIR EISA EO EPCA FCAA GHG GWh GWP HAP HCD HFCs HRA IRA kBTU kWh LCFS LEV LSTs MC/RHD MMT MMTCO2e MSSP Micrograms Per Cubic Meter Assembly Bill Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Air Quality Management Plan British Thermal Unit Coccidiodes immitis California Ambient Air Quality Standards Corporate Average Fuel Economy California Emissions Estimator Model California Air Resources Board California Clean Air Act California Energy Commission California Environmental Quality Act Methane City of Seal Beach Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide California Public Utilities Commission Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel Risk Reduction Plan Environmental Impact Report Energy Independence and Security Act Executive Order Energy Policy and Conservation Act Federal Clean Air Act Greenhouse Gases gigawatt-hours Global Warming Potential Hazardous Air Pollutants California Department of Housing and Community Development Hydrofluorocarbons Health Risk Assessment Inflation Reduction Act 1,000 British Thermal Units kilowatt-hour Low Carbon Fuel Standard Low-Emission Vehicle Localized Significance Thresholds Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Million Metric Tons Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Main Street Specific Plan ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT iv MTCO2e N2O NAAQS NESHAP NHTSA NOA NF3 NOX NO2 O3 Pb PFCs PM PM2.5 PM10 ppb ppm Project RFS RHNA ROG RTP/SCS RPS SAFE SB SCAB SCAG SCAQMD SCE SF6 SIP SO2 SoCalGas TAC USEPA USC VMT ZEV Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Nitrous Oxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Naturally Occurring Asbestos Nitrogen Trifluoride Oxides of Nitrogen Nitrogen Dioxide Ozone Lead Perfluorocarbons Particulate Matter Fine particulate matter; particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller Particulate matter; particulate matter 10 microns or smaller parts per billion parts per million City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Renewable Fuel Standard Regional Housing Needs Allocation Reactive Organic Gases Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Renewable Portfolio Standard Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Senate Bill South Coast Air Basin Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Edison Sulfur Hexafluoride State Implementation Plan Sulfur Dioxide Southern California Gas Company Toxic Air Contaminant United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Code Vehicle Miles Traveled Zero Emission Vehicle ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) would involve implementing the City’s Housing Element Update, which is intended to provide the City of Seal Beach (City) with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The Housing Element Update identifies an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City's latest RHNA calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. Of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites included in the Project, six would require rezoning, and two are underutilized sites that do not require rezoning. The City’s rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, “Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density” (MC/RHD). In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a modification to the existing Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). This analysis provides a programmatic evaluation of future development of up to 1,606 new residential units facilitated by the Project. 1.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Impact AIR-1: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact AIR-2: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact AIR-3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact AIR-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact GHG-1: The Project would not generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact GHG-2: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.2 Impact ENR-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less Than Significant Impact. Impact ENR-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact. 1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES MM AQ-1. Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction- related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: • Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant VOC content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: • All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by CARB. • Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. • Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. • Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.3 • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). • Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2. Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational- related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Prohibition of natural gas hearths. • Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. • Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. • Constructing Level 2 EV charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant VOC content (0 to 10 g/L). MM AQ-3. Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any component that would involve construction lasting more than 2 months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and OEHHA guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce DPM exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed CARB’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.4 Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. MM GHG-1. Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to GHG emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light- colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.5 o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; o Provide parking cash-out programs; o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Executive Summary 1.6 stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Introduction 2.7 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS The purpose of this Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact is to evaluate the existing conditions and potential impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy resource areas from construction and operations of the development facilitated by Project. This analysis is intended to support preparation of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This evaluation relies on guidance and thresholds established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach’s Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. The Housing Element Update is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The Project would involve implementing the City’s Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update identifies an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes; and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Element Update originally included 13 Housing Opportunity Sites. However, in response to comments received from HCD during the CEQA process, the number of Housing Opportunity Sites identified has been reduced to eight. Of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning. The City’s rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre. This new zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a proposal for the Main Street Program. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Introduction 2.8 modify the existing MSSP to allow for residential units to be developed at select properties located within the MSSP area. The analysis contained herein assumes the development under the Main Street Program at 70 precent of maximum buildout resulting in the potential for 115 new dwelling units to be developed within the MSSP area. Finally, this analysis also accounts for the residential component of the Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC). The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. The Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project is a proposed 5.2-acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore were not included within this analysis. In total, the analysis contained herein assumed buildout under the Project to result in the potential for 1,773 new dwelling units (1,491 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, 115 dwelling units from the Main Street Program, and the 167 units from the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) to be developed within the City. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,606 additional housing units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The buildout assumptions for development of the Project are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Housing Element Update Buildout Assumptions Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density (du/ac) Total Units Underutilized Sites 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 0.25 21.8 5 2 Leisure World 5.5 32.2 177 Total Units from Underutilized Sites 182 Rezoned Sites 3 Accurate Storage 1.8 46 83 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 12 46 552 5 Old Ranch Town Center 8.3 46 382 6 Seal Beach Plaza 1.5 46 69 7 Seal Beach Center 2.7 46 124 8 99 Marina Drive 3 33 99 Total Units from Proposed Rezoning 1,309 ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Introduction 2.9 Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density (du/ac) Total Units Total Units including Underutilized Sites and Rezone 35.05 -- 1,491 Other Sites Main Street Program* -- -- 115 Residential Component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project 5.2 167 Total Units under Buildout 1,773 * The Housing Element Update assumes under the Main Street Program, two residential units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period. However, based on a 70 percent buildout scenario of the 163 total dwelling units identified in the Initial Study for the Main Street Specific Plan area, 115 dwelling units is the assumed buildout condition under the Main Street Program for the purposes of CEQA. 2.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Existing Conditions The Project site is comprised of eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City of Seal Beach, California and totaling approximately 83.45 acres. However, the majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites would only allow for development within portions of the overall Housing Opportunity Site due to existing development and, therefore, the total developable acres for the Housing Opportunity Sites would total 35.05 acres. Additionally, the Project site includes the Main Street Specific Plan area which provides an additional 9.2 acres of developable acres. Therefore, the Project includes 92.65 total acres of land within the City but would have a total developable acreage of 44.25 acres. The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. As the existing land uses are comprised of a variety of land uses across the City, the surrounding land uses are similarly varied in character. Surrounding land uses generally consist of residential development, vacant land, commercial and retail uses, parking lots, mobile home parks, institutional and industrial uses, and military uses as well as other urban and suburban land uses throughout the City. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.10 3.0 AIR QUALITY 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, which is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). SCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Regulatory oversight authority regarding air quality rests at the local, State, and federal levels with the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), respectively. The existing air quality setting is described further below. 3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology The SCAB covers approximately 12,000 square miles, consisting of Orange County and the urbanized areas of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate (SCAQMD 1993). 3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria air pollutants includes ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (measured both in units of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5] and in units of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]), and lead (Pb). Ozone. Most ground-level ozone is formed as a result of complex photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and oxygen. ROG and NOx are considered precursors to the formation of ozone, a highly reactive gas that can damage lung tissue and affect respiratory function. While ozone in the lower atmosphere is considered a damaging air pollutant, ozone in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, as it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, atmospheric processes preclude ground-level ozone from reaching the upper atmosphere (USEPA 2023a). Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Elevated levels of CO can result in harmful health effects, especially for the young and elderly, and can also contribute to global climate change (USEPA 2023a). ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.11 Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas primarily produced as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. NO2 can also lead to the formation of ozone in the lower atmosphere. NO2 can cause respiratory ailments, especially in the young and elderly, and can lead to degradations in the health of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (USEPA 2023a). Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is primarily emitted from the combustion of coal and oil by steel mills, pulp and paper mills, and non-ferrous smelters. High concentrations of SO2 can aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in asthmatics and others who suffer from emphysema or bronchitis. SO2 also contributes to acid rain, which in turn, can lead to the acidification of lakes and streams (USEPA 2023a). Particulate Matter. Airborne PM is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. PM is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Particles vary widely in size, shape, and chemical composition, and may contain inorganic ions, metallic compounds, elemental carbon, organic compounds, and compounds from the earth’s crust. Particles are defined by their diameter for air quality regulatory purposes. Those with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) are inhalable into the lungs and can induce adverse health effects. Fine particulate matter is defined as particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). Therefore, PM2.5 compromises a portion of PM10. Emissions from combustion of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel or wood produce much of the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air, as well as significant proportion of PM10. PM10 also includes dust from construction sites, landfills and agriculture, wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, wind-blown dust from open lands, pollen, and fragments of bacteria. PM may be either directly emitted from sources (primarily particles) or formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions of gases (secondary particles) such as SO2, NOx, and certain organic compounds (USEPA 2023a). Lead. Sources of Pb include pipes, fuel, and paint, although the use of Pb in these materials has declined dramatically over the years. Historically, a main source of Pb was automobile emissions. Pb can be inhaled directly or ingested by consuming Pb-contaminated food, water, or dust. Fetuses and children are most susceptible to Pb poisoning, which can result in heart disease and nervous system damage (USEPA 2024a). Through regulations, USEPA has gradually reduced the Pb content of gasoline. This program has essentially eliminated violations of the Pb standard in urban areas except those areas with Pb point sources. 3.1.3 Attainment Status The USEPA and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “non- attainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National non-attainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Attainment status is based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.12 quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring value exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual standard for PM2.5 is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) identifies two types of NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (USEPA 2023a). The CAAQS are equal to or more stringent than the NAAQS and include pollutants for which national standards do not exist. Table 2 presents the applicable CAAQS and NAAQS. Table 2. California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Primary Secondary Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standards 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) -- Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) -- 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Annual arithmetic mean -- 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) -- 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (80 µg/m3) -- 3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) -- -- Respirable Particulate Matter Smaller than 10 Microns in Diameter (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 -- Same as Primary Standards 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter Smaller than 2.5 Microns in Diameter (PM2.5)3 Annual arithmetic mean 12 µg/m3 9.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 24-hour No separate standard 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standards Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 -- -- ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.13 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Primary Secondary Lead (Pb) 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 -- -- Calendar quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-month average -- 0.15 µg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) -- -- Vinyl chloride (chloroethene) 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) -- -- Visibility reducing particles 8-hour In 1989, the Air Resources Board converted the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are extinction of 0.23 per kilometer. -- -- Notes: 1. CO, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, O3, PM10, and visibility reducing particles standards are not to be exceeded. 2. Not to be exceeded more than once a year except for annual standards. 3. On February 7, 2024, the USEPA issued a pre-publication version of the Final Rule to lower the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from 12.0 µg/m3 to 9.0 µg/m3. -- = no standard established µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB 2016. Table 3 presents the federal and State attainment status for the SCAB, in which the Project is located. The Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5, the State standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Table 3. Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3) – 1-Hour and 8-Hour Non-Attainment (Extreme) Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 1-Hour and 8-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – 1-Hour and Annual Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Annual Unclassifiable/Attainment * Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Non-Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Annual Non-Attainment (Serious) Non-Attainment Lead (Pb) – 3-Month Rolling Non-Attainment * I I I I I I I I C•i AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.14 Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) – 1-Hour * Attainment Sulfates – 24-Hour * Attainment Vinyl Chloride – 24-Hour * Attainment Note: * = Not Applicable/No Standards. Source: SCAQMD 2016a. 3.1.4 Ambient Air Quality The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Project sites is the Anaheim Monitoring Station located at 1630 West Pampas Lane. Table 4 includes a summary of the air quality monitoring data for the years 2021 through 2023. The table shows the number of times the station recorded pollutant concentrations above federal and State air quality standards and the highest annual reading for each pollutant. Table 4. Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023) Pollutant Air Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2021 2022 2023 Ozone (ppm) Maximum 1-hour measurement 0.089 0.102 0.089 Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 1 0 Maximum 8-hour measurement 0.068 0.076 0.076 Number of days over National 8-hour standard 0 1 2 Number of days over California 8-hour standard 0 1 2 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppb) Maximum 1-hour measurement 67.1 53.0 50.9 Annual average 12 11 10 Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 0 0 PM2.5 (µg/m3) Maximum 24-hour measurement 54.4 33.1 45.6 Annual average 11.6 9.9 * Number of days over National 24-hour standard 10 0 1 PM10 (µg/m3) Maximum 24-hour measurement 63.6 67.0 97.8 Annual average 23.4 20.9 20.6 Number of days over National 24-hour standard 0 0 0 Number of days over California 24-hour standard 1 1 1 Source: CARB 2024a. Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per liter; * means there was insufficient data to determine the value. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.15 3.1.5 Odors Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from the psychological (i.e., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to the physiological (i.e., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others have varying sensitivities to odors; and people may have different reactions to the same odor (e.g., bakery, gasoline). It is important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience (e.g., a description of flowery or sweet). Intensity refers to the strength of the odor and depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases, the odor intensity weakens, and it eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant drops below a human’s detection threshold. 3.1.6 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air but, due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which State and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are not subject to NAAQS or CAAQS ambient air quality standards. Instead, USEPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with SCAQMD rules, these federal and State statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national level, USEPA has established national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based, source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. The following provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.16 Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the CARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute approximately 42 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 55 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources, contributing about three percent of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (CARB 2024b). In October 2000, CARB issued a report entitled Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM. The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel through advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. When fully implemented, the DRRP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel-fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, CARB continues to promote the use of alternative fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (CARB 2024b). In comparison to year 2010 inventory of statewide DPM emissions, CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be reduced by more than 50 percent. DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (also called “soot” or “black carbon”) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. Diesel exhaust also contains gaseous pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx. NOx emissions from diesel engines are important because they can undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere leading to formation of PM2.5 and O3. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen accounting for an estimated 70 percent of the total known cancer risks in California. DPM is estimated to increase statewide cancer risk by 520 cancer occurrences per million residents exposed over an estimated 70-year lifetime. Non- cancer health effects associated with exposure to DPM include premature death, exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, and decreased lung function in children. Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks (CARB 2024b). ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.17 Individuals most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects of DPM are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who often have chronic health problems. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to DPM (CARB 2024b). In addition to its health effects, DPM significantly contributes to haze and reduced visibility. Valley Fever Valley fever is an infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. The fungus that causes Valley fever, Coccidiodes immitis (C. immitis), is found in the southwestern United States, parts of Mexico and Central America, and parts of South America. The fungus grows naturally and is endemic in many areas within California. People can get this infection by breathing in fungal spores from the air, especially when the wind blows the soil with the fungal spores into the air, or the dirt is moved by human activity. About 10,000 cases in the United States are reported each year, mostly from Arizona and California. Valley fever can be misdiagnosed because its symptoms are like those of other illnesses. For most people, the symptoms of Valley fever will go away within a few months without any treatment. Some people may develop a more severe infection, especially those with compromised immune systems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). In California, the number of reported Valley fever cases has greatly increased in recent years. Since 2000, the number of reported cases from increased from 1,000 to more than 9,000 cases reported in 2019 (California Department of Public Health 2021). In 2022, 297 cases of Valley fever were recorded within Orange County (California Department of Public Health 2024). Asbestos Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals with useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings constructed prior to 1977 when it was banned for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil disturbing activities in areas with deposits present (USEPA 2024b). 3.1.7 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiovascular diseases. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The Project sites contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.18 3.2 REGULATORY SETTING Air quality within the Project area is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not be superseded, both State and local regulations may be more stringent. 3.2.1 Federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990. Federal Clean Air Act The FCAA required the USEPA to establish NAAQS, and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table 2. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the USEPA established the NESHAPs. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Among these sources include asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). NESHAPs include requirements pertaining to the inspection, notification, handling, and disposal of ACBMs associated with the demolition and renovation of structures. Non-Road Diesel Rule The USEPA has established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and locomotives. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, would be required to comply with the emissions standards. 3.2.2 State California Air Resources Board The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS, which in many cases are more stringent than the ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.19 NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel and engine used. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 2. California Clean Air Act The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non- attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both State and federal planning requirements. Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures. Assembly Bill 617 In response to AB 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. The Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also includes new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout the State. Regulatory Attainment Designations Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.20 excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The USEPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” As noted previously, the Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5, the State standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Low-Emission Vehicle Program The CARB first adopted Low‐Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 2012, CARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments include more stringent emission standards for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for new passenger vehicles. On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program The CARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on‐road heavy‐duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on‐ road heavy‐duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. CARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in‐use heavy‐duty vehicles including the Heavy‐Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy‐Duty Diesel In‐Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others. In addition, the CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation was established to meet federal attainment standards. This regulation requires heavy-duty diesel vehicles that operate in California to reduce TAC emissions ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.21 from their exhaust. Diesel exhaust is responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Therefore, as of January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses were required to have 2010 or newer model year engines to reduce PM and NOx emissions. To help ensure that the benefits of this regulation are achieved, starting in 2020, only vehicles compliant with this regulation were registered by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 3.2.3 Regional SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the following six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategies pursuant to SB 375, growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the SCAQMD air quality plans (SCAG 2023). In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which is entitled Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2024). The 2024 RTP/SCS supersedes the previous RTP/SCS that was adopted in 2020. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded, and the air quality conditions are maintained in the SCAB. Responsibilities of SCAQMD include, but not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA. SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan SCAB is designated as non-attainment for both federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5, the State standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. Because the SCAB currently exceeds these NAAQS and CAAQS, the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. The most recent air plan is the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), created in conjunction with the SCAG, CARB, and USEPA to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards. The 2022 AQMP accounts for projected population growth and predicted future emissions in energy and transportation demand, and determined control strategies for the eventual achievement of the NAAQS attainment designations. These control strategies are either organized into the SCAQMD rules and regulations, or otherwise set forth as formal SCAQMD recommendations to other agencies. The 2022 AQMP includes policies that are consistent with the SCAQMD and specify review according to the ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality 3.22 recommendations of SCAQMD guidelines. Other policies are aimed at reducing transportation emissions and emissions from major stationary sources (SCAQMD 2022). SCAQMD Rules and Regulations The SCAQMD rules are regulations that may apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: • Rule 201: Permit to Construct. This rule requires that projects shall obtain a permit to construct from the SCAQMD prior to initiating construction activities. • Rule 401: Visible Emissions. This rule prohibits discharges of visible air contaminants from any single source. • Rule 402: Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge from any source such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public. • Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. • Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings. This rule is intended to limit the VOC content on architectural coatings used within the SCAQMD. • Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: This rule specifies work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. 3.2.4 Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City of Seal Beach prepared their General Plan in September 2003 in order to plan for the City’s development. The 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as the updated Housing Element include the following goals to promote energy efficiency which would in turn reduce air quality emissions (City of Seal Beach 2003). • Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. o Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.23 4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect” and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. 4.1.1 Greenhouse Gases Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Primary GHGs attributed to global climate change are discussed in the following subsections. Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (USEPA 2023b). Methane. CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas, and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years (USEPA 2023b). Nitrous Oxide. N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.24 sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years (USEPA 2023b). Hydrofluorocarbons. HFCs are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC-23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (USEPA 2023b). Perfluorocarbons. PFCs are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively (USEPA 2023b). Nitrogen Trifluoride. NF3 is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, toxic, nonflammable gas used as an etchant in microelectronics. NF3 is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chambers in the production of liquid crystal displays and silicon-based thin film solar cells. In 2009, NF3 was listed by California as a potential GHG to be listed and regulated under AB 32 (Section 38505 Health and Safety Code). Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and generally nonflammable. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Leaks of SF6 occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (USEPA 2023c). Black Carbon. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly by absorbing sunlight and indirectly by depositing on snow and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is considered a short-lived species, which can vary spatially and, consequently, it is very difficult to quantify associated global-warming potentials. The main sources of black carbon in California are wildfires, off-road vehicles (locomotives, marine vessels, tractors, excavators, dozers, etc.), on-road vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), fireplaces, agricultural waste burning, and prescribed burning (planned burns of forest or wildlands). California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, including programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2013). ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.25 4.1.2 Global Warming Potential Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Based on a 100-year time horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon. 4.1.3 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions On a global scale, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with activities related to energy production; changes in land use, such as deforestation and land clearing; industrial sources; agricultural activities; transportation; waste and wastewater generation; and commercial and residential land uses. World-wide, energy production including the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global GHG emissions. United States of America In 2022, net GHG emissions in the United States totaled 5,489 MMTCO2e, an increase of one percent when compared to 2021 emissions. Within the United States, the largest contributor to GHG emissions is the transportation sector (28 percent). The next largest contributors are from electricity production (25 percent) and industry (23 percent), followed by the commercial and residential sector (13 percent) and the agricultural sector (10 percent). Transportation emissions primarily come from burning fossil fuels for cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum-based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel. The bulk of emissions generated from energy production come from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. Industry emissions are also primarily generated from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain GHGs, and the handling of waste. Similar to industry sector emissions, commercial and residential uses arise primarily from fossil fuels for heat, the use of certain products that contain GHGs, and the handling of waste. Agricultural emissions come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soil, and rice production. The land use and forestry sector within the U.S. serves as a carbon sink. Carbon sinks absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Land areas across the U.S. absorbed approximately 12 percent of the 2021 GHG emissions (USEPA 2024d). California In 2022, GHG emissions within California totaled 371.1 MMTCO2e. Similar to national emissions, in California, the transportation sector is the largest contributor. Transportation emissions account for approximately 39 percent of the total statewide GHG emissions. The majority of transportation emissions are derived from passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. Emissions associated with industrial uses are ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.26 the second largest contributor, totaling roughly 23 percent. Industrial emissions are driven by fuel combustion from sources that include refineries, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and the portion of cogeneration emissions attribution to thermal energy output. Electricity generation (in-state and imports) totaled roughly 16 percent. Other GHG sources include agriculture (8 percent), residential (8 percent), and commercial (6 percent) (CARB 2024e). 4.1.4 Effects of Global Climate Change There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, increased air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy. Within California, climate changes would likely alter the ecological characteristics of many ecosystems throughout the State. Such alterations would likely include increases in surface temperatures and changes in the form, timing, and intensity of precipitation. For instance, historical records are depicting an increasing trend toward earlier snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada. This snowpack is a principal supply of water for the State, providing roughly 50 percent of State’s annual runoff. If this trend continues, some areas of the State may experience an increased danger of floods during the winter months and possible exhaustion of the snowpack during spring and summer months. An earlier snowmelt would also impact the State’s energy resources. An early exhaustion of the Sierra snowpack may force electricity producers to switch to more costly or non-renewable forms of electricity generation during spring and summer months. A changing climate may also impact agricultural crop yields, coastal structures, and biodiversity. As a result, resultant changes in climate will likely have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry. 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING There are considerable regulatory actions regarding GHGs and climate change at the State and local level. The following includes the key State and regional regulations applicable to the Project. 4.2.1 State Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, NF3, has also been added to the list of GHGs. CARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following: Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well‐being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.27 include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007. Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. In order to set a framework for the State to meet this target, CARB was tasked with creating a Scoping Plan (as described below). California announced in July 2018 that the State emitted 427 MMTCO2e in 2016 and achieved AB 32 goals (CARB 2018). SB 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016. SB 32 states that “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost‐effective GHG emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide GHG emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” Assembly Bill 1279: The California Climate Crisis AB 1279 was signed into law in 2022 and establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. AB 1279 would also ensure that by 2045 the statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced by at least 85percent below 1990 levels. The bill would require CARB to ensure that an updated Scoping Plan identifies and recommends measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies to complement AB 1279’s emissions reduction requirements. 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan was approved in December 2022 and assesses progress toward achieving the SB 32 2030 target and laying out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022). Cap-and-Trade Program CARB administers the State’s cap-and-trade program, which covers GHG sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year), such as refineries, power plants, and industrial facilities. This market-based approach to reducing GHG emissions provides economic incentives for achieving GHG emission reductions. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.28 Senate Bill 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits more than 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. CARB has prepared a Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets in 2018 which set updated GHG reduction targets for metropolitan planning organizations for 2020 and 2035. Pursuant to SB 375, the SCAG reduction targets for per capita vehicular emissions were 8 percent by 2020 and are 13 to 19 percent by 2035 (CARB 2024c). Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations and fuel efficiency standards that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by USEPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. USEPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The standards were phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near‐term (2009–2012) standards resulted in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid‐term (2013–2016) standards resulted in about a 30 percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation, rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi‐speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant. The second phase of the implementation for AB 1493 was incorporated into Amendments to the Low‐ Emission Vehicle Program, referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog‐causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation would reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The rules would reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel‐powered cars and would deliver increasing numbers of zero‐emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations would also provide adequate fueling infrastructure for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.29 Senate Bill 1368: Emission Performance Standards Enacted in 2006, SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal‐fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long‐term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Senate Bill 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards SB 1078 (September 12, 2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, the governor signed Executive Order (EO) S‐14‐08, which established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. EO S‐21‐09 directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10‐23. In 2011, the State legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1‐2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 SB 350 (October 7, 2015) reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Senate Bill 100: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program SB 100 (September 10, 2018) revised the RPS goals to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end‐use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. The bill also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.30 electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Executive Order S-01-07: Low Carbon Fuel Standard EO S-01‐07 was signed on January 18, 2007. The EO mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the EO established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life‐cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in an implementation plan for the State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007, and was submitted to CARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009. The LCFS was subject to legal challenge in 2011. Ultimately, CARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS and new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low‐carbon fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulation on November 16, 2015. The regulation was last amended in 2019, and approved on May 27, 2020. The 2019 amendments provide clarification related to the Clean Fuel Reward program costs, credit transactions, fuels transactions and compliance reporting. Additional amendments have been proposed and are going to approval hearings in March 2024 (CARB 2024d). Executive Order S-13-08: Climate Adaptation Strategy EO S‐13‐08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in this EO, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted, which is the “… first statewide, multi‐sector, region‐specific, and information‐based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles In January 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-48-18 requiring all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of the electric vehicle charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.31 ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 Zero- Emissions Vehicle Action Plan to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, all state entities are to support and recommend policies and actions to expand ZEV infrastructure at residential land uses, through the LCFS Program and recommend how to ensure affordability and accessibility for all drivers. Executive Order N-79-20 In September 2020, Governor Newsom signed EO N-79-20, which sets the following goals for the State: 100 percent of in-State sales of new passenger cars and trucks shall be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State shall be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment in the State shall be zero-emission by 2035, where feasible. 4.2.2 Regional SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the following six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategies pursuant to SB 375, growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the SCAQMD air quality plans (SCAG 2023). In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which is entitled Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2024). The 2024 RTP/SCS supersedes the previous RTP/SCS that was adopted in 2020. 4.2.3 Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City of Seal Beach prepared their General Plan in September 2003 in order to plan for the City’s development. The 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as the updated Housing Element include the following goals to promote energy efficiency which would in turn reduce GHG emissions (City of Seal Beach 2003). • Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas 4.32 o Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy 5.33 5.0 ENERGY 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Within Orange County, energy is provided in the form of petroleum fuel (gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas. In 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Southern California Edison (SCE) is the utility company that provides electricity to the City of Seal Beach. In 2022, for their standard power mix, approximately 33.2 percent of SCE’s electricity came from renewable resources including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric sources. Additionally, approximately 45 percent of SCE's total electric power mix is from GHG-free sources, which includes nuclear and large hydroelectric sources of energy (SCE 2024). In 2022, Orange County consumed approximately 20,244 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, 39 percent of which is attributed to residential land uses (CEC 2016a). Natural gas is used for cooking, space heating, generating electricity, and as an alternative transportation fuel. Natural gas service is provided to the City by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). In 2022, Orange County consumed approximately 572 million therms of natural gas, 61 percent of which is attributed to residential land uses (CEC 2016b). 5.2 REGULATORY SETTING The following includes the key federal, State, and local regulations related to energy resources that are applicable to the Project. 5.2.1 Federal Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines as well as licensing hydropower projects. Licensing of hydroelectric facilities under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission includes input from State and federal energy and power generation, environmental protection, fish and wildlife, and water quality agencies. National Energy Conservation Policy Act The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S. Code [USC] Section 8201 et seq.) serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements and is the foundation of most federal energy requirements. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act also established fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. The National Highway Traffic Safety ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy 5.34 Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. NHTSA and the USEPA are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of clean energy vehicles with improved fuel efficiency. NHTSA sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels, which are rapidly increasing over the next several years to improve energy security and reduce fuel consumption. In March 2022, the NHTSA finalized CAFE standards for model years 2024 to 2026. The standards require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks by model year 2026. The NHTSA projects that the foregoing standards will avoid the consumption of approximately 234 billion gallons of gasoline between model years 2030 to 2050 (NHTSA 2022). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) aimed to increase U.S. energy security, increased CAFE standards for motor vehicles, and included provisions related to energy efficiency, such as renewable fuel standards (RFS), appliance and lighting efficiency standards; and building energy efficiency standards. The EISA required increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum. The USEPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure transportation fuel sold into the U.S. contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS programs regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel products, and other stakeholders and were created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS program established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the U.S. As required under the EISA, the original RFS program required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. The RFS program was expanded in several ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program is referred to as RFS2, and includes the following: • EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; • EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one; and • EISA required by the USEPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces. Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternate energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.” Federal Vehicle Standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) mandated that the NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy, known as the CAFE program, to reduce ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy 5.35 national energy consumption. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the USC, as amended by the EISA, EPCA sets forth specific requirements concerning the establishment of average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The EISA, discussed above, amended the EPCA CAFE program requirements by providing the Department of Transportation additional rulemaking authority and responsibilities. Consistent with its statutory authority in rulemaking to establish CAFE standards for model year 2017 and beyond, NHTSA developed two phases of standards. The first phase included final standards for model years 2017–2021. The second phase, covering model years 2022–2025, included standards that were not final, due to the statutory requirement that NHTSA set average fuel economy standards not more than five model years at a time. Rather, NHTSA wrote that those standards were augural, meaning that they represented its best estimate, based on the information available at that time, of what levels of stringency might be maximum feasible in those model years. In 2012, the agencies jointly adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for light duty cars and trucks, which would cover model years 2017 through 2025. In August of 2016, the agencies adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which would cover model years 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. On March 31, 2020, NHTSA and the USEPA released a new rule, the final Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, setting CAFE and carbon dioxide emissions standards for model years 2021 through 2026 passenger cars and light trucks. The rule rolls back the 2012 standards for model years 2021 through 2026 for passenger cars and light trucks, which had required an average fleetwide fuel economy equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon in model year 2025 with a 5 percent annual increase to an average fuel economy of about 40 miles per gallon in model year 2025 with annual increases of 1.5 percent starting in 2021. As a part of issuing the new SAFE rule, NHTSA issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement which found that the relaxed standards would result in increased petroleum consumption which in turn would result in increases to GHG and criteria pollutant emissions known to contribute to adverse health impacts (NHTSA 2020). The estimated increases from the roll back of the 2012 standards are expected to result in more than a billion metric tons additional climate pollution through 2040 as determined by calculating the difference from the reduction of 2 billion metric tons the 2012 rule was expected to accomplish compared to the standards of the 2020 rule (NHTSA 2020). On January 20, 2021, an EO was issued on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which includes review of the Part One Rule by April 2021 and review of the Part Two Rule by July 2021. In response to the Part One Rule, in December 2021, the Department of Transportation withdrew its portions of the SAFE rule. As a result, states are now allowed to issue their own GHG emissions standards and zero-emissions vehicle mandates. In addition, the Part Two Rule was adopted to revise the existing national GHG emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks through model year 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and will result in avoiding more than three billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy 5.36 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is considered the most ambitious climate law in U.S. history, and is intended to reduce GHG emissions, help build a clean economy, reduce energy costs for Americans, and advance environmental justice. With funding from the IRA, the USEPA has launched a network of clean energy financing and provided grant funding for climate pollution reduction programs (USEPA 2024c). 5.2.2 State California Public Utilities Commission The CPUC is a State agency created by a constitutional amendment to regulate privately-owned utilities providing telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation services and in-State moving companies. The CPUC is responsible for ensuring that California utility customers have safe, reliable utility services at reasonable rates, while protecting utility customers from fraud. The CPUC regulates the planning and approval for the physical construction of electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities, and local distribution pipelines of natural gas. California Energy Code Compliance with the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards) and Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy, standards must occur for all new buildings constructed in California. These efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential (i.e., maintenance buildings and pump station buildings associated with the Program) buildings, and they regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit processes, and local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings provided that these standards meet or exceed those provided in the Title 24 guidelines. Warren-Alquist Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act Initially passed in 1974 and amended since, the Warren-Alquist Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (Warren-Alquist Act) created the California Energy Commission (CEC), California’s primary energy and planning agency. The seven responsibilities of the CEC are forecasting future energy needs, promoting energy efficiency and conservation through setting standards, supporting energy- related research, developing renewable energy resources, advancing alternative and renewable transportation fuels and technologies, certifying thermal power plants 50 megawatts or larger, and planning for and directing State response to energy emergencies. The CEC regulates energy resources by encouraging and coordinating research into energy supply and demand problems to reduce the rate of growth of energy consumption. Additionally, the Warren-Alquist Act acknowledges the need for renewable energy resources and encourages the CEC to explore renewable energy options that would be in line with environmental and public safety goals (Warren-Alquist Act Public Resources Code (PRC) section 25000 et seq.) ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy 5.37 California Integrated Energy Policy SB 1389 requires the CEC to "conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public health and safety." (PRC Section 25301(a)). The CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report every two years and an update every other year. The most recent version is the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update (CEC 2022). California Renewables Portfolio Standard California’s RPS was initially established in 2002 by SB 1078, with the initial requirement that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable resources by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, which required that the 20 percent mandate be met by 2010. In April 2011, SB 2 was signed into law, requiring electricity retailers in the State to procure 33 percent of their energy sources from renewable energy sources by the end of 2020 (CPUC 2021). In addition, SB 350, passed in 2015, directs California utilities to further increase the amount of renewable energy delivered to customers to 50 percent by 2030. CPUC implements and administers RPS compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity, which include large and small investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators. The CEC is responsible for the certification of electrical generation facilities as eligible renewable energy resources and adopting regulations for the enforcement of RPS procurement requirements of public owned utilities. 5.2.1 Local City of Seal Beach General Plan The City of Seal Beach prepared their General Plan in September 2003 in order to plan for the City’s development. The 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as the updated Housing Element include the following goals to promote energy efficiency (City of Seal Beach 2003). • Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. o Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Methodology and Modeling Parameters 6.38 6.0 METHODOLOGY AND MODELING PARAMETERS The following discussion explains the methodology and modeling parameters that will be used to estimate air quality and GHG emissions, potential health risks, and energy demand associated with implementation of the Project. 6.1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND GHG EMISSION METHODS The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod quantifies direct GHG emissions, such as construction and operational activities and vehicle use, and indirect emissions, such as energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Further, CalEEMod identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from measures chosen by the user. CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) have been provided by the various California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions. CalEEMod is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act documents, conducting pre-project planning, and, verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc. CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28 was used to estimate construction and operational impacts of the Project. 6.1.1 Modeling Assumptions Impacts resulting from implementation of the Project are assessed at a programmatic level because specific information for buildout of each Housing Opportunity Site is not available at this time. In the absence of specific thresholds of significance for programmatic analyses, this analysis broadly evaluates Project consistency with the applicable air quality plan (2022 AQMP) and GHG reduction plans (SCAG’s RTP/SCS and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan). In addition, short-term construction emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs are estimated based on a reasonably foreseeable subcomponent of the Project, and long-term operational emissions are estimated assuming full buildout of the Project. Construction at Housing Opportunity Site 4 Construction emissions were estimated for the most emissions-intensive Project component, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most housing ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Methodology and Modeling Parameters 6.39 units (see Table 1). At maximum buildout, Housing Opportunity Site 4 can accommodate 552 high-density residential units at a density of 46 dwelling units per acre. Construction was assumed to begin in early 2025. The construction schedule, off-road equipment types and usage, and worker vehicle trips were left as model default values. Additional haul truck trips were added (10 one-way trips per day during demolition and 15 one-way trips per day during site preparation) to account for the potential off-hauling of demolished building materials and/or soil import or export. It was assumed that 100 percent of off-site worker, vendor, and haul truck trips would occur on paved roadways consistent with defaults for Orange County. The CalEEMod results are included in Appendix A. Daily emissions were quantified for the construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 and assessed in comparison to the SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, a qualitative assessment of construction of all Project components is included in the analysis. Operation of Full Project Buildout Buildout of the Project would generate air pollutant and GHG emissions from on-road vehicle travel (mobile sources), consumer products and landscaping (area sources), and natural gas combustion (energy sources). Operational emissions associated with the Project were estimated for the year 2029, estimated buildout of the Project, using CalEEMod and compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The trip generation rate for each land use was updated to be consistent with the Project- specific VMT Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc, and the trip lengths and purposes were left as CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod results are included in Appendix A. 6.2 ENERGY CALCULATION METHODS Project energy demand during construction and operations was determined based on the modeling that was conducted for the Project using CalEEMod and using vehicle and equipment emission factors from the CARB’s EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) and EMFAC OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5). The energy calculations are included as Appendix B. Construction energy use was calculated for the most energy-intensive future development under the Project, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most housing units. At maximum buildout, Housing Opportunity Site 4 can accommodate 552 high- density residential units at a density of 46 dwelling units per acre. For operation, energy-use was calculated for 1,773 residential units. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.1 7.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS 7.1 CEQA GUIDELINES According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated to determine whether impacts related to air quality are considered to be significant environmental effects. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? 7.1.1 Thresholds of Significance Pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency. The SCAQMD has adopted mass daily thresholds of significance for NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, CO, and Pb to determine the significance of a project’s potential air quality impacts. Table 5, below, presents the mass daily thresholds applied to the Project and used for purposes of this analysis. Table 5. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Emissions Thresholds Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Pb Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Notes: N/A = not applicable Source: SCAQMD 1993. The SCAQMD has also developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO. The LSTs are intended to represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the CAAQS or NAAQS, and were developed based on the ambient ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.2 concentrations of each criteria pollutant at specific source receptor areas. It is noted that the use of LSTs is a voluntary approach to analysis and may implemented at the discretion of local agencies (SCAQMD 2008a). SCAQMD only recommends the use of LSTs for projects under 5 acres in size. Accordingly, the LSTs are not applicable for the Project, which includes approximately 44.25 acres of development space. According to SCAQMD, a significant health impact would occur if a project would result in an incremental cancer risk that exceeds 10 persons in one million, or the chronic and acute risks exceed a calculated Hazard Index value of 1.0. 7.2 AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact AIR-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact Analysis Air districts are required to prepared air quality plans to identify strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. As noted previously, the SCAB is designated as a non-attainment area for both the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5, the State standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Accordingly, SCAQMD, in collaboration with CARB and SCAG, has prepared air quality plans, including the 2022 AQMP, to achieve attainment of the applicable ozone and PM standards. The SCAG’s RTP/SCS is also considered an applicable air quality plan. Project consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS is evaluated in Table 12. The 2022 AQMP was adopted in December 2022 and represents the most updated regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and minimizing public health concerns related to air quality. The 2022 AQMP particularly focuses on attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Project would be considered to conflict with the 2022 AQMP if it would: 1. Contribute to exceedances and/or delay attainment of the ozone standards; 2. Result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the project area; or 3. Interfere with implementation of the ozone reduction measures established in the AQMP. With regard to Item 1, air districts establish emissions thresholds to demonstrate the point at which a project would be considered to increase the regional air quality violations. As described in further detail under Impact AIR-2, construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. VOC is an ozone precursor and, by exceeding the VOC threshold of significance, cumulative buildout of the Project may delay attainment of the ozone AAQS. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.3 With regard to Item 2, the population projections in the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP are based on the regional growth projections included in the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS (SCAQMD 2022). According to the Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report prepared for the 2020 RTP/SCS, the City of Seal Beach housing stock is projected to grow from 13,100 households in 2016 to 13,300 households in 2045 (SCAG 2020). The City’s household growth projected in the 2020 RTP/SCS, and therefore in the 2022 AQMP, is less than what is planned in the Housing Element, which considers up to 1,773 new residential units by 2029. Implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. With regard to Item 3, the 2022 AQMP notes that attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by 2037 will require both continuation and acceleration of existing ozone reduction strategies, as well as deployment of new strategies. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include stationary and mobile source NOx reduction strategies, supplemented by strategic VOC emission reductions. The following ozone reduction measures identified in the 2022 AQMP are relevant to residential land uses: • R-CMB-01: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Water Heating • R-CMB-02: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Space Heating • R-CMB-03: Emissions Reductions from Residential Cooking Devices • R-CMB-04: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Other Combustion Sources • CTS-01: Further Emission Reductions from Coatings, Solvents, Adhesives, and Lubricants Each of the foregoing measures are intended for implementation at the local or regional government level, rather than the project level. For example, the 2022 AQMP notes that each measure shall be implemented by (1) adopting a new rule to require compliance and (2) offering incentive funds to facilitate adoption of low-emissions technologies. Because the measures are not directly applicable to the Project, development facilitated under the Project would not interfere with implementation of the air quality improvement strategies established in the AQMP. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan would increase the total residential units to 1,773 and would further increase the Project’s household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP. Additionally, the impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5 below. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Table 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Emissions were found to exceed thresholds and therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.4 Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even with the implementation of mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1. Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction- related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: • Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant VOC content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: • All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by CARB. • Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.5 • Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. • Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). • Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2. Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational- related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Prohibition of natural gas hearths. • Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. • Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. • Constructing Level 2 EV charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant VOC content (0 to 10 g/L). Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.6 Impact AIR-2 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? Impact Analysis In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If an individual project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As noted previously, the Project does not propose any individual development projects at this time but, rather, would facilitate the future development of up to 1,773 residential units as identified in the Housing Element. Construction Emissions Construction activities facilitated by the Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants due to the use of off-road equipment, heavy-duty haul trucks, and employee commutes to and from the construction sites. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated from earth-moving activities. Emissions from construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. Specific buildout details of each Project component are not available at this time; accordingly, this analysis presents estimated construction emissions associated with the most emissions-intensive component of the Project, which entails buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4. Housing Opportunity Site 4 totals 27 acres, 12 acres of which can be developed, and was modeled to accommodate 552 multi- family units, based on the maximum allowable buildout. The estimated criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 are presented in Table 6. Table 6. Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 166.23 13.78 36.26 0.04 6.14 1.77 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix A. As shown above, buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissions- intensive component of the Project, may generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD mass daily thresholds for VOC. These emission calculations are based on CalEEMod default factors based on land use type and size which are generally more conservative than project-specific inputs. However, ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.7 performing more specific emissions calculations for any of the Housing Opportunity Areas or the MSSP to determine significance on a project site by project site basis would be speculative. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and future CEQA review. However, since the largest Housing Opportunity site exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, other sites may result in potentially significant emissions due to a more intensive construction timeline, additional demolition and grading, or additional construction trips. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, each component facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify construction emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the component would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, including through the use of super-compliant VOC coatings. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction exhaust emissions, potential future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction. As a result, the cumulative impact from construction of the Project remains significant and unavoidable. Operational Emissions Implementation of the Project and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in future development of up to 1,773 new residential units. Emissions during operation of the Project would be generated primarily from resident vehicle trips to and from the sites (mobile sources). In addition, the buildout facilitated by the Project would generate emissions from area sources, which include the use of fireplaces, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and others. Estimated operational emissions from cumulative Project buildout are presented in Table 7. As shown in the table, full buildout of the residential units facilitated by the Project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required. As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-2, each component facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify their individual operational emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the component would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. For this example, architectural coatings were limited to those with a VOC content less than 10 grams per liter. The emissions that would occur from operations with the implementation of mitigation are presented in Table 8. Table 7. Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 28.4 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3 Area 50.0 0.00 101 <0.005 0.05 0.04 Energy 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 0.49 Total1 79.0 28.3 356 0.75 71.5 18.8 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix A. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.8 Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 1 Totals may not appear to sum due to rounding. Table 8. Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 28.6 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3 Area 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 0.45 Total 69.6 27.9 255 0.74 71.45 18.7 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No Source: Appendix A. As shown above, even with mitigation, operational emissions of VOC would exceed the threshold of significance. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions, cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, the cumulative impact from operations of the Project remains significant and unavoidable. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion As shown in Table 6, construction emissions of the most intensive Project component would exceed the applicable threshold of significance for VOC emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, a significant impact may occur. Additionally, as presented in Table 8, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, operational criteria pollutant emissions could exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.9 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact AIR-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact Analysis As discussed above, the Project itself does not propose any development; however, the Project would facilitate future development of up to 1,773 residential units throughout the City. The candidate housing sites were evaluated at a programmatic level, and no air modeling was conducted for this analysis. This discussion qualitatively addresses whether implementation of the Project would expose sensitive receptors to construction-generated fugitive dust (PM10), Valley fever spores, naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), construction-generated DPM, or operational related TACs. According to CARB, some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. As noted previously, the identified Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences. Construction Emissions During construction associated with the Project, the potential exists for emissions of fugitive dust, Valley fever, NOA, and DPM to be released. Each TAC is discussed separately below. Fugitive Dust and Valley Fever Fugitive dust would be generated during construction facilitated by the Project. As noted previously, Valley fever is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of a fungus, C. immitis, that lives in soil. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.10 Most of the fugitive dust generated during construction activities would remain localized and would be deposited near each construction site. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, limits the discharge of PM emissions and establishes Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction activities (SCAQMD 2005). Consistent with the SCAQMD Best Available Control Measures, construction of each component facilitated by the Project would be required to use water trucks to stabilize soils. In addition, the City of Seal Beach is generally built out; therefore, much of the development facilitated by the Project would occur in urban areas where conditions are generally not dry, dusty, or windy. Furthermore, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-2, development of each component subject to discretionary approval shall evaluate their individual construction emissions. If the component is determined to result in PM emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, then minimization measures would be incorporated to reduce PM emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Overall, construction activities associated with future development facilitated by the Project would not result in sensitive receptor exposure to substantial concentrations of fugitive dust, including dust that may contain C. immitis spores. Asbestos Construction in areas of rock formations that contain NOA could release asbestos to the air and pose a health hazard. A review of the map with areas more likely to have rock formations containing NOA in California indicates that there is no known asbestos in the City of Seal Beach (USGS 2011). Therefore, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to NOA. Many of the components of the Project would entail demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate new housing. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material” unless proven otherwise. ACBMs could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, would ensure that any ACBMs encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately, and risks to existing sensitive receptors would not occur. Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. Thresholds were established based on an individual project’s size, location, and distance to receptors. However, SCAQMD established in the PEIR for the 2016 AQMP that the LST screening methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as local general plans, specific plans, or air quality plans since the individual project plans are typically not known at plan adoption (SCAQMD 2016b). Therefore, since the analysis is evaluating the buildout of the Housing Element, a localized construction analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project would be required to quantify the individual construction emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.11 Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure to DPM from diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment can result in health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Pollutant concentrations are typically highest near sources of emissions and dissipate with distance. Thus, the sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites would be the most susceptible to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, preparation of a meaningful HRA is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable. Operational Emissions The greatest potential for exposure to TACs during long-term operations is from the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks and stationary generators that use diesel fuel. The Project would facilitate development of up to 1773 residential units throughout the City. The majority of vehicle trips associated with the Project would be from residents and, as a result, future development associated with the Project would result in very few diesel truck trips. Additionally, the residential units developed under the Project are not expected to include any stationary generators. Should a generator be proposed as part of a future development under the Project, the project would be required by SCAQMD to evaluate the impacts of the generator as part of obtaining a Permit to Operate. For these reasons, once operational, the Project would not be expected to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of TACs. During operations, dust emissions would be negligible because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This would preclude the possibility of Project operations resulting in exposure to fugitive dust emissions and C. immitis spores that may result in Valley fever infection. As noted above, SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. A localized operational analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the Project would be required to quantify the individual operational emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction and operation of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan may result in impacts to health risks. Construction of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would still be required to comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations pertaining to dust control and permitting and therefore, the 167 ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.12 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, during construction, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the impact would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. However, the impact may remain significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. MM AQ-3. Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any component that would involve construction lasting more than 2 months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and OEHHA guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce DPM exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed CARB’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.13 Impact AIR-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Analysis While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be unpleasant, leading to distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor. Construction activities facilitated by the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with diesel-fueled equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. Construction of all components facilitated by the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. The SCAQMD has identified land uses commonly subject to odor complaints. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project entails development of residential uses and would not involve any of the land uses identified to result in odor complaints nor involve any components with the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finally, SCAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402, Nuisance (SCAQMD 1976). Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made during implementation of the Project, the SCAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Residential developments are not land uses commonly subject to odor complaints and all developments within SCAQMD would be subject to rules and regulations pertaining to odor. Therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Air Quality Impact Analysis 7.14 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.15 8.0 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS 8.1 CEQA GUIDELINES The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on GHGs, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated. The following GHG significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 8.1.1 Thresholds of Significance After the adoption of AB 32, the SCAQMD established a GHG working group to develop thresholds of significance for the analysis of GHG emissions. In December 2008, the SCAQMD Board adopted the Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, which established a screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD 2008b). Additionally, the SCAQMD working group recommended that instead of an individual construction GHG threshold, construction emissions should be amortized over the life of the project (30 years) and evaluated with a project’s annual, operational GHG emissions. 8.2 GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact Analysis The Project does not propose any individual development projects at this time but, rather, would facilitate the future development of up to 1,606 residential units as identified in the Housing Element. Buildout of the future components facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operations, as discussed in further detail below. Construction Emission Inventory GHG emissions would be generated during construction from off-road equipment and on-road vehicle exhaust from worker vehicle trips and hauling truck trips. Table 8, below, presents a summary of the estimated GHG emissions that would result from construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.16 expected to be the most emissions-intensive component of the Project. The table also includes an estimate of the total GHG emissions associated with cumulative buildout of the entire Project, assuming that construction of every Project unit released the same volume of GHG. To be consistent with SCAQMD’s GHG emissions policy, the table also presents construction emissions amortized over a 30- year Project lifetime. Table 9. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year Emissions (MTCO2e per year) 2025 863.92 2026 405.74 Total for Housing Opportunity Site 4 1,269.70 Total for Full Project Buildout1 4,078 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 135.94 1. To estimate GHG emissions from Full Project Buildout, the emissions from construction of 552 units at Housing Opportunity Site 4 were scaled up on a unit-wise basis to 1773 units. Source: Appendix A. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual operational emissions and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of significance below. Operational Emission Inventory Operational, or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the Project. Operational activities of the residential components facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions primarily from mobile sources. Operational GHG emissions from cumulative Project buildout, as well as amortized construction emissions, are shown in Table 10. Table 10. Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Mobile 11,722 Area 30.6 Energy 2,890 Water 583 Waste 309 Refrigerants 2.12 Operation Subtotal 15,637 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 136 ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.17 Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Project Total 15,773 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: Appendix A. As shown in the table, full buildout of the residential units facilitated by the Project would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which provides a menu of GHG reduction measures, is required. Table 11 presents the Project’s GHG emissions with application of the following GHG reduction measures: • Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure; • Provide bicycle parking; • Provide traffic-calming measures; • Exceed Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 10 percent; • Require energy efficient appliances; • Establish on-site solar energy systems sufficient to meet 50 percent of each structure’s electricity demand; • Install alternative water heater in place of gas storage tank water heater; • Install electric space heater in place of natural gas heaters; • Install electric ranges in place of gas ranges • Require low-flow water fixtures; • Replace gas-powered landscape equipment with zero-emission landscape equipment; and • Prohibit the installation of fireplaces. Table 11. Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated) Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Mobile 11,722 Area - Energy 1,922 Water 554 Waste 409 Refrigerants 2.12 Operation Subtotal 14,609 Amortized Construction Emissions from Full Project Buildout 136 Project Total 14,745 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Source: Appendix A. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.2 As presented above, while implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG emissions, the level of emissions would not be reduced to below the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.7-1. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3. Emissions were found to exceed GHG draft interim thresholds and therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the Project could generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG impacts, the Project would still result in emissions that exceed the applicable threshold of significance. Future housing developments evaluated as part of the Project may be subject to discretionary permits and future CEQA review on a project-by-project basis. Regardless, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1. Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to GHG emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light- colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.3 o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.4 o Provide parking cash-out programs; o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significance and Unavoidable Impact. Impact GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis A project would have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions and global climate change if it would substantially conflict with the provisions of Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant GHG impact is identified if the project could conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations. The Project would be subject to complying with SB 32 and AB 1279. For this analysis, the applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions are the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Project consistency with the foregoing plans is evaluated below. Consistency with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan, approved in December 2022, builds upon previous iterations of State scoping plans to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions below 85 percent below ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.5 1990 no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279 (CARB 2022). Table 12 identifies the Scoping Plan policies that may be applicable to the developments facilitated by the Project. Table 12. Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Measure Consistency Determination Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. While the Project would not deploy ZEVs, consistent with the 2022 California Building Standards Code, or applicable code at the time of construction, all residential buildings facilitated by the Project would include EV-capable infrastructure to accommodate future installation of a Level 2 EV charger. Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining CA fuel demand Not Applicable. This measure is aimed at petroleum refineries and fossil fuel extraction operations. The Project would not interfere with this goal. Generate clean electricity Consistent. Development facilitated by the Project would comply with all relevant provisions included in the California Building Standards Code applicable at the time of construction. Pursuant to the 2022 California Building Standards Code, new residential structures shall include rooftop solar panels to generate clean electricity. Decarbonize Buildings Consistent. Development facilitated by the Project would comply with all applicable provisions included in the California Building Standards Code applicable at the time of construction, which would help reduce GHG emissions associated with building operations. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that each future development facilitated by the Project would reduce GHG emissions. Decarbonize Industrial Energy Supply Not Applicable. The Project would facilitate development of residential land uses and would not affect the industrial sector. Reduce non-combustion emissions (Methane) Consistent. The Project would facilitate development of residential land uses and would not include any land uses that generate significant levels of methane, such as landfills or dairy farms. Reduce non-combustion emissions (Hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]) Consistent. Development facilitated under the Project would comply with all State regulations governing SLCPs, including HFCs. Compensate for remaining emissions Not Applicable. This measure is aimed at the State government to reduce statewide emissions to meet AB 1279 goals. Source: CARB 2022. This analysis finds that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Consistency with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. The primary goal of Connect SoCal is to achieve sustainable regional growth while reducing GHG emissions ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 8.6 through transportation and land use planning. Project consistency with the specific goals of Connect SoCal which are applicable to the Project are evaluated in Table 12. Table 13. Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Goal Consistency Determination Goal 36: Encourage housing development in transit-supportive and walkable areas to create more interconnected and resilient communities Consistent. Implementation of the Project would inherently support this goal. The Project would facilitate the development of up to 1,606 residential units throughout the City. The housing types consist of multi- family residences designated for varying income levels, including low- income and moderate-income units. Additionally, Orange County Transportation Authority and Long Beach Transit both provide public transit services throughout the City. Thus, future residents of components facilitated by the Project would have access to public transportation options. Goal 37: Support local, regional, state and federal efforts to produce and preserve affordable housing while meeting additional housing needs across the region. Consistent. See discussion above. Additionally, by implementing the Housing Element Update and demonstrating the City’s ability to achieve provide housing at varying income levels, the Project would help encourage a diverse housing stock and contribute to more equitable communities. Goal 51: Reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region through planning and implementation efforts. Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 would ensure that the Project reduces air and GHG emissions. Source: SCAG 2024a. The RTP/SCS generally encourages residential growth within identified priority growth areas, transit priority areas, and high-quality transit areas in order to facilitate the use of public transit and reduce per capita VMT. The City of Seal Beach does not include any priority growth areas, transit priority areas, and high-quality transit areas. However, multi-family housing is known to have a lower trip generation rate as compared to single-family residential units (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021). Furthermore, infill development and densification also supports a reduced rate of single-passenger vehicle trips (Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation 2024). Based on the above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1, the Project is considered consistent with the overarching goals of Connect SoCal 2024. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAQG’s Connect SoCal 2024 were evaluated for the buildout of 1,773 residential units and therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9.7 Conclusion The Project could conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; therefore, impacts could be considered significant. However, with the implementation of mitigation, the Project would comply with all applicable measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan and the RTP/SCS, and the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy Impact Analysis 10.8 10.0 ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS 10.1 CEQA GUIDELINES The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a project would have a significant impact on energy the following must be evaluated. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 10.2 ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact ENR-1 Result in potential significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Impact Analysis The energy requirements for buildout of the up to 1,773 residential units that would be facilitated under the Project were determined using the construction and operational estimates generated from the calculation worksheets for energy consumption (Appendix B). This impact addresses the energy consumption from both construction of an individual project and operational activities from the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, discussed separately below. Construction Energy Demand During construction activities facilitated by the Project, energy resources would be consumed in the form of diesel and gasoline fuel from the use of off-road equipment (i.e., tractors, excavators, cranes) and on- road vehicles (i.e., construction employee commutes, haul trucks). Construction is not anticipated to require natural gas. Temporary electricity may be required to provide as-necessary lighting and electric equipment; such electricity demand would be met by portable generator sets and, possibly, local distribution. Fuel demand associated with portable generators is incorporated in the off-road equipment estimate provided below. The amount of electricity used during construction would be minimal. Specific buildout details of each future housing development facilitated by the Project are not available at this time; accordingly, this analysis presents estimated construction energy demand associated with buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which would accommodate up to 552 multi-family units. All other Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy Impact Analysis 10.9 Specific Plan Project are planned to involve development of fewer units and less ground disturbance and, thus, would likely result in less energy consumption during construction. Therefore, the developed of Housing Opportunity Site 4 is anticipated to be the most energy-intensive future development due to the size of the site. Off-Road Equipment Construction activities associated with buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, including site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating, was estimated to consume 46,170 gallons of diesel fuel from the use of off-road equipment. For comparison, in 2022, approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Thus, the diesel fuel required to power the off-road equipment during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 would represent approximately 0.002 percent of the State’s annual diesel demand. If the construction fuel demand for off-road equipment is scaled up to 1,773 units, then cumulative buildout of all developments facilitated by the Project would utilize approximately 0.005 percent of the State’s annual diesel demand. On-Road Vehicles On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 13 provides an estimate of the total on-road vehicle fuel usage during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4. Table 14. Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption Project Component VMT Gasoline Consumptions (gallons) Diesel Consumption (gallons) Electricity Consumption (kWh) Worker Trips 1,885,331 65,515 258 34,352 Vendor Trips 150,472 4,436 7,819 977 Haul Trips 7,000 1 1,146 82 Totals 2,042,804 69,952 9,224 35,411 Notes: Calculations use unrounded numbers; totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding. VMT = vehicle miles traveled Source: Appendix B. As shown above, construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 was estimated to consume 69,952 gallons of gasoline, 9,224 gallons of diesel, and 35,411 kWh of electricity associated with the use of on-road vehicles. For comparison, in 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Thus, the fuel required to power the on-road motor vehicles during construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 would ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy Impact Analysis 10.1 represent approximately 0.0005 percent and 0.0003 percent of the State’s annual gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. If the construction fuel demand for on-road vehicles is scaled up to 1,773 units, then cumulative buildout of all developments facilitated by the Project would utilize approximately 0.0016 percent and 0.001 percent of the state’s annual gasoline and diesel demand, respectively. Construction Conclusion Overall, construction activities associated with each component facilitated by the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels and electricity from electric vehicles. However, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with each component of the Project and the Project as a whole would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. Operational Energy Demand Implementation of the Project would result in future development of up to 1773 new residential units. During operations of the Project, energy would be required to power the residential buildings and to fuel the vehicles travelling to and from the sites. Building Energy The 1,733 new residential units facilitated by the Project would require energy for normal operations, such as lighting and temperature controls. Building energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout. Over the course of a year, operational building energy consumption for all residential units accommodated by the Project would total approximately 6,642,169 kWh of electricity and 24,075,048 kBTU of natural gas.1 It is noted that all future buildings would be constructed in compliance with the energy efficiency standards set forth in the California Building Standards Code that is applicable at the time of construction. As the California Building Standards Code will likely require more efficient design measures future, this represents a conservative estimate of the total electricity and natural gas Project buildout may require. Therefore, the Project’s total energy consumption and would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Transportation Energy Future users of the 1,773 new residential units would travel to and from their residences during normal operations. Transportation energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout and consistent with the VMT assessment prepared for the Project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in the operational air quality and GHG analysis for the Project. Table 14 provides an 1 These estimates do not account for the implementation of any mitigation. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy Impact Analysis 10.1 estimate of the annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project sites. As shown in the table, annual vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 1,137,357 gallons of gasoline, 133,422 gallons of diesel, and 895,624 kWh of electricity. In 2022, approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel for motor vehicles was purchased within California (CDTFA 2024). Therefore, full buildout of the Project would result in transportation fuel consumption that represents approximately 0.008 percent and 0.004 percent of the State’s annual demand for gasoline and diesel, respectively. The Project would not result in vehicle use that is any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other vehicle uses in the region. Table 15. Project Operations – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Proportion of Fleet Gasoline Consumptions (gallons/yr) Diesel Consumption (gallons/yr) Electricity Consumption (kWh/yr) Passenger Cars (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV) 0.9236 1,069,206 3,881 786,447 Trucks (HHDT, MHDT, LHDT1, LHDT2) 0.0701 61,979 125,861 106,883 Motorcycles, Motor Homes, and Buses (MCY, MH, OBUS, SBUS, UBUS) 0.0063 6,171 3,679 2,294 Totals 1.00 1,137,357 133,422 895,624 Notes: Calculations use unrounded numbers; totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding. VMT = vehicle miles traveled Source: Appendix B. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction and operation from the total 1,773 units were evaluated in the analysis above. Therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, both construction and operations of the individual Project components and the Project as a whole would not result in a potential significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Energy Impact Analysis 10.1 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Impact ENR-2 Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Impact Analysis All developments facilitated by the Project would comply with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Local regulations have been developed in accordance with federal and State energy regulations, such as the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743, which are also aimed at reducing energy consumption. This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 residential units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulation aimed at reducing energy consumption. Therefore, the 167 residential units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone project-specific EIR. Conclusion The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT References 11.1 11.0 REFERENCES CARB. 2013. GHG Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Inventory. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-slcp- inventory. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2018. Climate Pollutants Fall Below 1990 Levels for the First Time. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/climate-pollutants-fall-below-1990-levels-first-time. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022- sp_1.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed October 23, 2024. _____. 2024b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024c. SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024d. LCFS Regulation. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel- standard/lcfs-regulation. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024e. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg- inventory-data. Accessed October 24, 2024. California Department of Public Health. 2021. Valley Fever Fact Sheet. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ValleyFeverFact Sheet.pdf#:~:text=Valley%20fever%20%28also%20called%20coccidioidomycosis%20or%20%E2 %80%9Ccocci%E2%80%9D%29%20is,areas%20of%20California%20and%20the%20southwest ern%20United%20States. Accessed January 31, 2024. ———. 2024. Valley Fever in California Dashboard. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverDashboard.aspx. Accessed January 31, 2024. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). 2024. Fuel Taxes Statistics & Reports. Website: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed January 31, 2024. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT References 11.2 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016a. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 31, 2024. _____. 2016b. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 31, 2024. _____. 2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2022-integrated-energy-policy-report-update. Accessed January 23, 2024. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis). Website: https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/index.html. Accessed January 31, 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. Website: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 23, 2024. CPUC. 2021. 60% RPS Procurement Rules. Website: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and- topics/electrical-energy/electric-power-procurement/rps/rps-compliance-rules-and-process/60- percent-rps-procurement-rules. Accessed January 23, 2024. Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2024. SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions. Website: https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html#housing-projects. Accessed October 24, 2024. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. NHTSA. 2020. Final Environmental Impact Statement for The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/safe_vehicles_rule_feis.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Available online at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws- regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy#40466. Accessed January 23, 2024. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 24, 2024. _____. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed January 18, 2024. _____. 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule- iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 24, 2024. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT References 11.3 ———. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final- lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed January 24, 2024. ———. 2008b. Draft Guidance Document, Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse- gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed January 24, 2024. ———. 2009. Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up- tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed January 24, 2024. ———. 2016a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs- caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed January 23, 2024. ———. 2016b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/aqmd- projects/2016/2016aqmpfpeir.pdf?sfvrsn=10. Accessed October 22, 2024. ———. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final- 2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16. Accessed January 23, 2024. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2, 2024. _____. 2023. About Us. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/about-us. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024. Connect SoCal 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal- 2024-final-complete-040424.pdf?1714175547. Accessed October 23, 2024. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2024. 2022 Power Content Label – Southern California Edison. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom- files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. January 24, 2024. USEPA. 2023a. Criteria Air Pollutants. Website: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air- pollutants?msclkid=402121eaa62811ec9f3a5e32e281714a. Accessed January 23, 2024. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT References 11.4 _____. 2023b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview- greenhouse-gases. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2023c. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Basics. Website: https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur- hexafluoride-sf6-basics. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024a. Lead. Website: https://www.epa.gov/lead. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024b. Asbestos. Website: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos. Accessed January 23, 2024. _____. 2024c. Inflation Reduction Act. https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act. Accessed January 24, 2024. _____. 2024d. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed October 23, 2024. USGS. 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed January 31, 2024. ■ AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A CALEEMOD MODELING RESULTS IJ Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 1 / 32 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated 3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 2 / 32 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 3 / 32 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 4 / 32 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 5 / 32 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Construction Start Date 1/1/2025 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.30 Precipitation (days)18.4 Location 33.74633801824868, -118.10302812087545 County Orange City Seal Beach Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5856 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.28 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Apartments Mid Rise 552 Dwelling Unit 12.0 529,920 0.00 —1,645 — Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 6 / 32 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.166 166 13.8 36.3 0.04 0.45 5.70 6.14 0.41 1.36 1.77 —9,555 9,555 0.26 0.47 25.1 9,726 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.4.11 3.39 33.0 33.3 0.06 1.38 20.2 21.5 1.27 10.2 11.5 —9,300 9,300 0.30 0.47 0.65 9,448 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.9.94 9.84 12.3 23.0 0.03 0.43 4.41 4.85 0.40 1.32 1.72 —6,077 6,077 0.19 0.27 6.02 6,169 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.1.81 1.80 2.24 4.20 0.01 0.08 0.81 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 —1,006 1,006 0.03 0.05 1.00 1,021 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) —————————————————— 2025 3.09 2.59 13.8 36.3 0.04 0.45 5.70 6.14 0.41 1.36 1.77 —9,555 9,555 0.26 0.47 25.1 9,726 ------------------- ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 7 / 32 2026 166 166 12.9 34.9 0.04 0.39 5.70 6.09 0.36 1.36 1.72 —9,423 9,423 0.25 0.47 22.8 9,592 Daily - Winter (Max) —————————————————— 2025 4.11 3.39 33.0 33.3 0.06 1.38 20.2 21.5 1.27 10.2 11.5 —9,300 9,300 0.30 0.47 0.65 9,448 2026 2.79 2.45 13.2 32.0 0.04 0.39 5.70 6.09 0.36 1.36 1.72 —9,174 9,174 0.26 0.47 0.59 9,321 Average Daily —————————————————— 2025 2.26 1.89 12.3 23.0 0.03 0.43 4.41 4.85 0.40 1.32 1.72 —6,077 6,077 0.19 0.27 6.02 6,169 2026 9.94 9.84 4.15 10.0 0.01 0.13 1.64 1.77 0.12 0.39 0.51 —2,741 2,741 0.08 0.13 2.85 2,786 Annual —————————————————— 2025 0.41 0.35 2.24 4.20 0.01 0.08 0.81 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 —1,006 1,006 0.03 0.05 1.00 1,021 2026 1.81 1.80 0.76 1.83 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.07 0.09 —454 454 0.01 0.02 0.47 461 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 —0.92 0.84 —0.84 —3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 —3,437 Demoliti on ——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ——————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 8 / 32 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —188 188 0.01 < 0.005 —188 Demoliti on ——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.2 Demoliti on ——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —189 189 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.88 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 —698 698 0.06 0.11 0.04 733 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 9 / 32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —38.2 38.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 40.2 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.74 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.77 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.33 6.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.65 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 —1.37 1.26 —1.26 —5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 —5,314 Dust From Material Movement ——————19.7 19.7 —10.1 10.1 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.03 —0.03 —145 145 0.01 < 0.005 —146 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 10 / 32 ———————0.280.28—0.540.54——————Dust From Material Movement Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.1 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.10 0.10 —0.05 0.05 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 —221 221 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 0.02 1.32 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.08 0.09 —1,046 1,046 0.08 0.17 0.06 1,099 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.14 6.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —28.7 28.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 30.1 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 11 / 32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.75 4.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.99 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 —1.23 1.14 —1.14 —6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 —6,622 Dust From Material Movement ——————9.20 9.20 —3.65 3.65 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.31 0.26 2.44 2.33 0.01 0.10 —0.10 0.09 —0.09 —542 542 0.02 < 0.005 —544 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.76 0.76 —0.30 0.30 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 12 / 32 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.06 0.05 0.45 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —90.1 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.14 0.14 —0.05 0.05 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 —253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 256 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.1 21.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.49 3.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 13 / 32 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 —0.43 0.40 —0.40 —2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 —2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 —0.43 0.40 —0.40 —2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 —2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.73 0.61 5.68 7.09 0.01 0.23 —0.23 0.22 —0.22 —1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.13 0.11 1.04 1.29 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —216 216 0.01 < 0.005 —217 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 14 / 32 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 1.60 1.41 1.38 22.2 0.00 0.00 5.19 5.19 0.00 1.22 1.22 —5,276 5,276 0.06 0.19 20.0 5,354 Vendor 0.14 0.05 1.96 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 —1,881 1,881 0.11 0.26 5.12 1,967 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 1.59 1.40 1.57 19.2 0.00 0.00 5.19 5.19 0.00 1.22 1.22 —5,021 5,021 0.07 0.19 0.52 5,079 Vendor 0.14 0.05 2.03 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 —1,882 1,882 0.11 0.26 0.13 1,963 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.86 0.75 0.85 10.9 0.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 0.00 0.65 0.65 —2,769 2,769 0.04 0.10 4.69 2,805 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.11 0.54 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.08 0.08 —1,024 1,024 0.06 0.14 1.21 1,069 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Worker 0.16 0.14 0.15 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 —458 458 0.01 0.02 0.78 464 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 —169 169 0.01 0.02 0.20 177 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 15 / 32 2,405—0.020.102,3972,397—0.35—0.350.38—0.380.0213.09.851.071.28Off-Roa d Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 —0.38 0.35 —0.35 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.36 0.30 2.76 3.63 0.01 0.11 —0.11 0.10 —0.10 —671 671 0.03 0.01 —673 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.07 0.05 0.50 0.66 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —111 111 < 0.005 < 0.005 —111 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 1.38 1.34 1.21 20.9 0.00 0.00 5.19 5.19 0.00 1.22 1.22 —5,175 5,175 0.06 0.19 18.0 5,251 Vendor 0.14 0.04 1.88 0.94 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 —1,851 1,851 0.09 0.26 4.78 1,936 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 16 / 32 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 1.37 1.34 1.39 18.1 0.00 0.00 5.19 5.19 0.00 1.22 1.22 —4,925 4,925 0.07 0.19 0.47 4,984 Vendor 0.14 0.04 1.96 0.96 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 —1,852 1,852 0.09 0.26 0.12 1,932 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.38 0.37 0.39 5.26 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.34 0.34 —1,397 1,397 0.02 0.05 2.17 1,416 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.55 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 —518 518 0.03 0.07 0.58 541 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 —231 231 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 234 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —85.8 85.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 89.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 —0.32 0.29 —0.29 —1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 —1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 17 / 32 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.8 Paving 0.00 0.00 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —195 195 < 0.005 0.01 0.68 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 18 / 32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.71 1.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architect ural Coating s 166 166 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.34 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 19 / 32 ————————————————9.099.09Architect ural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Off-Roa d Equipm ent < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.22 Architect ural Coating s 1.66 1.66 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.28 0.27 0.24 4.19 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.24 0.24 —1,035 1,035 0.01 0.04 3.60 1,050 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —54.7 54.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 55.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.06 9.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 20 / 32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati on TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 21 / 32 Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 22 / 32 Annual —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2025 1/29/2025 5.00 20.0 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2025 2/13/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2025 3/28/2025 5.00 30.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 3/29/2025 5/23/2026 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 5/24/2026 6/21/2026 5.00 20.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/22/2026 7/20/2026 5.00 20.0 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 23 / 32 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 10.0 20.0 HHDT Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 24 / 32 Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 15.0 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 397 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 59.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 79.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 25 / 32 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 1,073,088 357,696 0.00 0.00 — 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 —— Site Preparation ——15.0 0.00 — Grading ——90.0 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Apartments Mid Rise —0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 26 / 32 2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.28 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 4.74 annual hectares burned Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 27 / 32 Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 28 / 32 Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 24.9 AQ-PM 60.5 AQ-DPM 40.5 Drinking Water 9.13 Lead Risk Housing 59.7 Pesticides 36.1 Toxic Releases 95.0 Traffic 53.4 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 90.0 Groundwater 88.5 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 29 / 32 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.8 Impaired Water Bodies 91.9 Solid Waste 67.5 Sensitive Population — Asthma 8.70 Cardio-vascular 22.7 Low Birth Weights 7.95 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 21.7 Housing 58.8 Linguistic 5.64 Poverty 0.83 Unemployment 32.3 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 97.84421917 Employed 59.16848454 Median HI 93.10920056 Education — Bachelor's or higher 89.32375209 High school enrollment 12.79353266 Preschool enrollment 95.7141024 Transportation — Auto Access 93.63531374 Active commuting 53.95868087 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 30 / 32 Social — 2-parent households 51.8285641 Voting 90.4016425 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 51.59758758 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 52.62414988 Supermarket access 74.83639163 Tree canopy 28.25612729 Housing — Homeownership 99.76902348 Housing habitability 85.98742461 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.05889901 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 54.20248941 Uncrowded housing 83.16437829 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 89.59322469 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 89.7 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 87.6 Cognitively Disabled 60.3 Physically Disabled 86.7 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 31 / 32 Heart Attack ER Admissions 70.3 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 19.2 Children 95.4 Elderly 10.4 English Speaking 98.1 Foreign-born 4.6 Outdoor Workers 93.2 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 30.4 Traffic Density 43.9 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 11.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 93.7 Seal Beach HE Update - Construction Detailed Report, 10/21/2024 32 / 32 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)23.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)92.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Acreage adjusted to match the estimated developable acres of Site No. 4. Construction: Trips and VMT Haul truck trips added into Demo and Site Prep phases to account for assumed material transport. Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 1 / 53 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 2 / 53 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 3 / 53 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 4 / 53 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 5 / 53 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 6 / 53 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 7 / 53 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Operational Year 2029 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.30 Precipitation (days)18.4 Location 33.74633801824868, -118.10302812087545 County Orange City Seal Beach Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5856 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Apartments Mid Rise 396 Dwelling Unit 10.4 380,160 7,917,891 —1,180 mid-rise units Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 8 / 53 low-rise units2,512—4,638,291893,58052.7Dwelling Unit843Apartments Low Rise Apartments High Rise 534 Dwelling Unit 8.61 512,640 6,254,666 —1,591 affordable units 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title Transportation T-14*Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Transportation T-34*Provide Bike Parking Transportation T-35*Provide Tra c Calming Measures Energy E-1 Buildings Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards Energy E-2 Require Energy Efficient Appliances Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Energy E-12-A Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences Energy E-12-B Install Electric Space Heater in Place of Natural Gas Heaters in Residences Energy E-13 Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures Area Sources LL-1 Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment Area Sources AS-2 Use Low-VOC Paints * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 9 / 53 Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.82.8 79.0 27.5 356 0.75 0.92 70.6 71.5 0.88 17.9 18.8 834 92,462 93,296 88.1 3.06 194 96,606 Mit.72.9 69.6 26.1 255 0.74 0.83 70.6 71.4 0.81 17.9 18.7 815 86,296 87,111 85.8 2.98 194 90,337 % Reduced 12%12%5%28%1%9%—< 0.5%8%—< 0.5%2%7%7%3%3%—6% Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.73.4 70.1 28.3 237 0.71 0.87 70.6 71.5 0.85 17.9 18.8 834 89,441 90,275 88.2 3.18 17.5 93,445 Mit.72.7 69.4 27.9 237 0.71 0.83 70.6 71.4 0.81 17.9 18.7 815 83,473 84,289 85.9 3.09 17.5 87,375 % Reduced 1%1%2%< 0.5%< 0.5%4%—< 0.5%4%—< 0.5%2%7%7%3%3%—6% Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.79.5 75.8 29.2 312 0.73 0.90 69.7 70.6 0.87 17.7 18.6 834 90,367 91,201 88.2 3.19 91.1 94,447 Mit.72.5 69.2 28.1 242 0.72 0.83 69.7 70.6 0.81 17.7 18.5 815 84,264 85,079 85.9 3.10 91.1 88,241 % Reduced 9%9%4%22%1%8%—< 0.5%7%—< 0.5%2%7%7%3%3%—7% Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.14.5 13.8 5.33 56.9 0.13 0.17 12.7 12.9 0.16 3.23 3.39 138 14,961 15,099 14.6 0.53 15.1 15,637 Mit.13.2 12.6 5.13 44.2 0.13 0.15 12.7 12.9 0.15 3.23 3.38 135 13,951 14,086 14.2 0.51 15.1 14,609 % Reduced 9%9%4%22%1%8%—< 0.5%7%—< 0.5%2%7%7%3%3%—7% 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 10 / 53 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Mobile 31.5 28.6 20.5 253 0.70 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —71,832 71,832 2.92 2.64 181 72,874 Area 50.5 50.0 0.95 101 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.04 —0.04 0.00 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 —270 Energy 0.71 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 —0.49 0.49 —0.49 —17,397 17,397 1.28 0.09 —17,455 Water ———————————127 2,965 3,092 13.3 0.33 —3,523 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 82.8 79.0 27.5 356 0.75 0.92 70.6 71.5 0.88 17.9 18.8 834 92,462 93,296 88.1 3.06 194 96,606 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 31.4 28.4 22.3 234 0.68 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —69,080 69,080 3.02 2.76 4.70 69,982 Area 41.3 41.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy 0.71 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 —0.49 0.49 —0.49 —17,397 17,397 1.28 0.09 —17,455 Water ———————————127 2,965 3,092 13.3 0.33 —3,523 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 73.4 70.1 28.3 237 0.71 0.87 70.6 71.5 0.85 17.9 18.8 834 89,441 90,275 88.2 3.18 17.5 93,445 Average Daily —————————————————— Mobile 31.2 28.2 22.5 240 0.68 0.38 69.7 70.1 0.36 17.7 18.1 —69,822 69,822 3.01 2.77 78.3 70,800 Area 47.6 47.3 0.65 69.1 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 0.00 184 184 0.01 < 0.005 —185 Energy 0.71 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 —0.49 0.49 —0.49 —17,397 17,397 1.28 0.09 —17,455 Water ———————————127 2,965 3,092 13.3 0.33 —3,523 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 79.5 75.8 29.2 312 0.73 0.90 69.7 70.6 0.87 17.7 18.6 834 90,367 91,201 88.2 3.19 91.1 94,447 Annual —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 11 / 53 Mobile 5.69 5.15 4.10 43.8 0.12 0.07 12.7 12.8 0.06 3.23 3.30 —11,560 11,560 0.50 0.46 13.0 11,722 Area 8.69 8.63 0.12 12.6 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 30.5 30.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.6 Energy 0.13 0.06 1.11 0.47 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —2,880 2,880 0.21 0.01 —2,890 Water ———————————21.1 491 512 2.19 0.06 —583 Waste ———————————117 0.00 117 11.7 0.00 —409 Refrig.————————————————2.12 2.12 Total 14.5 13.8 5.33 56.9 0.13 0.17 12.7 12.9 0.16 3.23 3.39 138 14,961 15,099 14.6 0.53 15.1 15,637 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 31.5 28.6 20.5 253 0.70 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —71,832 71,832 2.92 2.64 181 72,874 Area 40.7 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy 0.66 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 —0.45 0.45 —0.45 —11,595 11,595 0.91 0.05 —11,632 Water ———————————109 2,869 2,978 11.3 0.29 —3,347 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 72.9 69.6 26.1 255 0.74 0.83 70.6 71.4 0.81 17.9 18.7 815 86,296 87,111 85.8 2.98 194 90,337 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 31.4 28.4 22.3 234 0.68 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —69,080 69,080 3.02 2.76 4.70 69,982 Area 40.7 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy 0.66 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 —0.45 0.45 —0.45 —11,525 11,525 0.90 0.05 —11,561 Water ———————————109 2,869 2,978 11.3 0.29 —3,347 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 12 / 53 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 72.7 69.4 27.9 237 0.71 0.83 70.6 71.4 0.81 17.9 18.7 815 83,473 84,289 85.9 3.09 17.5 87,375 Average Daily —————————————————— Mobile 31.2 28.2 22.5 240 0.68 0.38 69.7 70.1 0.36 17.7 18.1 —69,822 69,822 3.01 2.77 78.3 70,800 Area 40.7 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy 0.66 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 —0.45 0.45 —0.45 —11,573 11,573 0.91 0.05 —11,610 Water ———————————109 2,869 2,978 11.3 0.29 —3,347 Waste ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Refrig.————————————————12.8 12.8 Total 72.5 69.2 28.1 242 0.72 0.83 69.7 70.6 0.81 17.7 18.5 815 84,264 85,079 85.9 3.10 91.1 88,241 Annual —————————————————— Mobile 5.69 5.15 4.10 43.8 0.12 0.07 12.7 12.8 0.06 3.23 3.30 —11,560 11,560 0.50 0.46 13.0 11,722 Area 7.42 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.02 0.44 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 —1,916 1,916 0.15 0.01 —1,922 Water ———————————18.0 475 493 1.88 0.05 —554 Waste ———————————117 0.00 117 11.7 0.00 —409 Refrig.————————————————2.12 2.12 Total 13.2 12.6 5.13 44.2 0.13 0.15 12.7 12.9 0.15 3.23 3.38 135 13,951 14,086 14.2 0.51 15.1 14,609 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 13 / 53 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Apartme nts Mid Rise 5.64 5.12 3.67 45.2 0.13 0.07 12.6 12.7 0.06 3.21 3.27 —12,852 12,852 0.52 0.47 32.5 13,039 Apartme nts Low Rise 17.8 16.2 11.6 143 0.40 0.22 39.9 40.1 0.20 10.1 10.3 —40,618 40,618 1.65 1.49 103 41,207 Apartme nts High Rise 8.06 7.32 5.24 64.6 0.18 0.10 18.0 18.1 0.09 4.58 4.67 —18,362 18,362 0.75 0.68 46.4 18,628 Total 31.5 28.6 20.5 253 0.70 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —71,832 71,832 2.92 2.64 181 72,874 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 5.61 5.08 3.98 41.9 0.12 0.07 12.6 12.7 0.06 3.21 3.27 —12,360 12,360 0.54 0.49 0.84 12,521 Apartme nts Low Rise 17.7 16.1 12.6 132 0.38 0.22 39.9 40.1 0.20 10.1 10.3 —39,062 39,062 1.71 1.56 2.66 39,572 Apartme nts High Rise 8.02 7.26 5.69 59.9 0.17 0.10 18.0 18.1 0.09 4.58 4.67 —17,658 17,658 0.77 0.71 1.20 17,889 Total 31.4 28.4 22.3 234 0.68 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —69,080 69,080 3.02 2.76 4.70 69,982 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 1.02 0.92 0.73 7.84 0.02 0.01 2.28 2.29 0.01 0.58 0.59 —2,068 2,068 0.09 0.08 2.32 2,097 Apartme nts Low Rise 3.21 2.91 2.32 24.8 0.07 0.04 7.20 7.24 0.04 1.83 1.86 —6,537 6,537 0.28 0.26 7.33 6,628 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 14 / 53 2,9963.310.120.132,9552,955—0.840.830.023.273.250.020.0311.21.051.321.45Apartme nts High Rise Total 5.69 5.15 4.10 43.8 0.12 0.07 12.7 12.8 0.06 3.23 3.30 —11,560 11,560 0.50 0.46 13.0 11,722 4.1.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 5.64 5.12 3.67 45.2 0.13 0.07 12.6 12.7 0.06 3.21 3.27 —12,852 12,852 0.52 0.47 32.5 13,039 Apartme nts Low Rise 17.8 16.2 11.6 143 0.40 0.22 39.9 40.1 0.20 10.1 10.3 —40,618 40,618 1.65 1.49 103 41,207 Apartme nts High Rise 8.06 7.32 5.24 64.6 0.18 0.10 18.0 18.1 0.09 4.58 4.67 —18,362 18,362 0.75 0.68 46.4 18,628 Total 31.5 28.6 20.5 253 0.70 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —71,832 71,832 2.92 2.64 181 72,874 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 5.61 5.08 3.98 41.9 0.12 0.07 12.6 12.7 0.06 3.21 3.27 —12,360 12,360 0.54 0.49 0.84 12,521 Apartme nts Low Rise 17.7 16.1 12.6 132 0.38 0.22 39.9 40.1 0.20 10.1 10.3 —39,062 39,062 1.71 1.56 2.66 39,572 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 15 / 53 17,8891.200.710.7717,65817,658—4.674.580.0918.118.00.100.1759.95.697.268.02Apartme nts High Rise Total 31.4 28.4 22.3 234 0.68 0.38 70.6 71.0 0.36 17.9 18.3 —69,080 69,080 3.02 2.76 4.70 69,982 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 1.02 0.92 0.73 7.84 0.02 0.01 2.28 2.29 0.01 0.58 0.59 —2,068 2,068 0.09 0.08 2.32 2,097 Apartme nts Low Rise 3.21 2.91 2.32 24.8 0.07 0.04 7.20 7.24 0.04 1.83 1.86 —6,537 6,537 0.28 0.26 7.33 6,628 Apartme nts High Rise 1.45 1.32 1.05 11.2 0.03 0.02 3.25 3.27 0.02 0.83 0.84 —2,955 2,955 0.13 0.12 3.31 2,996 Total 5.69 5.15 4.10 43.8 0.12 0.07 12.7 12.8 0.06 3.23 3.30 —11,560 11,560 0.50 0.46 13.0 11,722 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————2,116 2,116 0.13 0.02 —2,124 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————4,712 4,712 0.29 0.04 —4,730 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 16 / 53 2,864—0.020.182,8532,853————————————Apartme nts High Rise Total ————————————9,681 9,681 0.60 0.07 —9,718 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————2,116 2,116 0.13 0.02 —2,124 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————4,712 4,712 0.29 0.04 —4,730 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————2,853 2,853 0.18 0.02 —2,864 Total ————————————9,681 9,681 0.60 0.07 —9,718 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————350 350 0.02 < 0.005 —352 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————780 780 0.05 0.01 —783 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————472 472 0.03 < 0.005 —474 Total ————————————1,603 1,603 0.10 0.01 —1,609 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 17 / 53 Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.8 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————3,095 3,095 0.19 0.02 —3,106 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————1,352 1,352 0.08 0.01 —1,357 Total ————————————4,477 4,477 0.28 0.03 —4,494 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.0 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————3,061 3,061 0.19 0.02 —3,073 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————1,331 1,331 0.08 0.01 —1,336 Total ————————————4,407 4,407 0.27 0.03 —4,423 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————4.26 4.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.28 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————511 511 0.03 < 0.005 —513 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 18 / 53 224—< 0.0050.01223223————————————Apartme nts High Rise Total ————————————738 738 0.05 0.01 —740 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.13 0.06 1.11 0.47 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —1,410 1,410 0.12 < 0.005 —1,414 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.41 0.20 3.47 1.48 0.02 0.28 —0.28 0.28 —0.28 —4,405 4,405 0.39 0.01 —4,418 Apartme nts High Rise 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.12 —0.12 —1,901 1,901 0.17 < 0.005 —1,906 Total 0.71 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 —0.49 0.49 —0.49 —7,716 7,716 0.68 0.01 —7,737 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.13 0.06 1.11 0.47 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —1,410 1,410 0.12 < 0.005 —1,414 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.41 0.20 3.47 1.48 0.02 0.28 —0.28 0.28 —0.28 —4,405 4,405 0.39 0.01 —4,418 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 19 / 53 1,906—< 0.0050.171,9011,901—0.12—0.120.12—0.120.010.641.500.090.18Apartme nts High Rise Total 0.71 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 —0.49 0.49 —0.49 —7,716 7,716 0.68 0.01 —7,737 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —233 233 0.02 < 0.005 —234 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.07 0.04 0.63 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —729 729 0.06 < 0.005 —731 Apartme nts High Rise 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —315 315 0.03 < 0.005 —316 Total 0.13 0.06 1.11 0.47 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —1,277 1,277 0.11 < 0.005 —1,281 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.12 0.06 1.02 0.44 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 —1,299 1,299 0.11 < 0.005 —1,303 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.37 0.19 3.20 1.36 0.02 0.26 —0.26 0.26 —0.26 —4,066 4,066 0.36 0.01 —4,077 Apartme nts High Rise 0.16 0.08 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 —0.11 0.11 —0.11 —1,753 1,753 0.16 < 0.005 —1,758 Total 0.66 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 —0.45 0.45 —0.45 —7,118 7,118 0.63 0.01 —7,138 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 20 / 53 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.12 0.06 1.02 0.44 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 —1,299 1,299 0.11 < 0.005 —1,303 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.37 0.19 3.20 1.36 0.02 0.26 —0.26 0.26 —0.26 —4,066 4,066 0.36 0.01 —4,077 Apartme nts High Rise 0.16 0.08 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 —0.11 0.11 —0.11 —1,753 1,753 0.16 < 0.005 —1,758 Total 0.66 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 —0.45 0.45 —0.45 —7,118 7,118 0.63 0.01 —7,138 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —215 215 0.02 < 0.005 —216 Apartme nts Low Rise 0.07 0.03 0.58 0.25 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —673 673 0.06 < 0.005 —675 Apartme nts High Rise 0.03 0.01 0.25 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —290 290 0.03 < 0.005 —291 Total 0.12 0.06 1.02 0.44 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 —1,178 1,178 0.10 < 0.005 —1,182 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ——————————————————------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 21 / 53 Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 38.2 38.2 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 3.06 3.06 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipm ent 9.22 8.73 0.95 101 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.04 —0.04 —269 269 0.01 < 0.005 —270 Total 50.5 50.0 0.95 101 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.04 —0.04 0.00 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 —270 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 38.2 38.2 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 3.06 3.06 ———————————————— Total 41.3 41.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual —————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 6.98 6.98 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 0.56 0.56 ———————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 22 / 53 Landsca Equipment 1.15 1.09 0.12 12.6 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —30.5 30.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.6 Total 8.69 8.63 0.12 12.6 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 30.5 30.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.6 4.3.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 38.2 38.2 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 2.45 2.45 ———————————————— Total 40.7 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 38.2 38.2 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 2.45 2.45 ———————————————— Total 40.7 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual —————————————————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 23 / 53 Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consum er Product s 6.98 6.98 ———————————————— Architect ural Coating s 0.45 0.45 ———————————————— Total 7.42 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————28.5 1,118 1,146 2.99 0.08 —1,244 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————60.6 882 943 6.27 0.15 —1,146 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————38.4 965 1,004 4.00 0.10 —1,134 Total ———————————127 2,965 3,092 13.3 0.33 —3,523 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 24 / 53 1,244—0.082.991,1461,11828.5———————————Apartme nts Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————60.6 882 943 6.27 0.15 —1,146 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————38.4 965 1,004 4.00 0.10 —1,134 Total ———————————127 2,965 3,092 13.3 0.33 —3,523 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————4.71 185 190 0.49 0.01 —206 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————10.0 146 156 1.04 0.03 —190 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————6.36 160 166 0.66 0.02 —188 Total ———————————21.1 491 512 2.19 0.06 —583 4.4.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————24.3 1,096 1,120 2.56 0.07 —1,205 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————51.8 836 888 5.36 0.13 —1,062 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 25 / 53 Apartme High Rise ———————————32.8 936 969 3.42 0.09 —1,080 Total ———————————109 2,869 2,978 11.3 0.29 —3,347 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————24.3 1,096 1,120 2.56 0.07 —1,205 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————51.8 836 888 5.36 0.13 —1,062 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————32.8 936 969 3.42 0.09 —1,080 Total ———————————109 2,869 2,978 11.3 0.29 —3,347 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————4.03 181 185 0.42 0.01 —199 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————8.57 138 147 0.89 0.02 —176 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————5.43 155 160 0.57 0.01 —179 Total ———————————18.0 475 493 1.88 0.05 —554 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 26 / 53 Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————158 0.00 158 15.8 0.00 —552 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————336 0.00 336 33.6 0.00 —1,175 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————213 0.00 213 21.3 0.00 —744 Total ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————158 0.00 158 15.8 0.00 —552 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————336 0.00 336 33.6 0.00 —1,175 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————213 0.00 213 21.3 0.00 —744 Total ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————26.1 0.00 26.1 2.61 0.00 —91.4 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————55.6 0.00 55.6 5.56 0.00 —195 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 27 / 53 Apartme High Rise ———————————35.2 0.00 35.2 3.52 0.00 —123 Total ———————————117 0.00 117 11.7 0.00 —409 4.5.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————158 0.00 158 15.8 0.00 —552 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————336 0.00 336 33.6 0.00 —1,175 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————213 0.00 213 21.3 0.00 —744 Total ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————158 0.00 158 15.8 0.00 —552 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————336 0.00 336 33.6 0.00 —1,175 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————213 0.00 213 21.3 0.00 —744 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 28 / 53 Total ———————————707 0.00 707 70.6 0.00 —2,472 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————26.1 0.00 26.1 2.61 0.00 —91.4 Apartme nts Low Rise ———————————55.6 0.00 55.6 5.56 0.00 —195 Apartme nts High Rise ———————————35.2 0.00 35.2 3.52 0.00 —123 Total ———————————117 0.00 117 11.7 0.00 —409 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————2.72 2.72 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————6.40 6.40 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————3.67 3.67 Total ————————————————12.8 12.8 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 29 / 53 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————2.72 2.72 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————6.40 6.40 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————3.67 3.67 Total ————————————————12.8 12.8 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————0.45 0.45 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————1.06 1.06 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————0.61 0.61 Total ————————————————2.12 2.12 4.6.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 30 / 53 2.722.72————————————————Apartme nts Mid Rise Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————6.40 6.40 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————3.67 3.67 Total ————————————————12.8 12.8 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————2.72 2.72 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————6.40 6.40 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————3.67 3.67 Total ————————————————12.8 12.8 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————0.45 0.45 Apartme nts Low Rise ————————————————1.06 1.06 Apartme nts High Rise ————————————————0.61 0.61 Total ————————————————2.12 2.12 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 31 / 53 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.7.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 32 / 53 Total —————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.8.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 33 / 53 Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.9.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm ent Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 34 / 53 Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati on TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 35 / 53 Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 36 / 53 Annual —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati on TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 37 / 53 ——————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ------------------- Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 38 / 53 ——————————————————Sequest ered Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,798 1,798 1,798 656,212 17,847 17,847 17,847 6,514,003 Apartments Low Rise 5,682 5,682 5,682 2,073,864 56,402 56,402 56,402 20,586,589 Apartments High Rise 2,569 2,569 2,569 937,517 25,497 25,497 25,497 9,306,433 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 39 / 53 5.9.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,798 1,798 1,798 656,212 17,847 17,847 17,847 6,514,003 Apartments Low Rise 5,682 5,682 5,682 2,073,864 56,402 56,402 56,402 20,586,589 Apartments High Rise 2,569 2,569 2,569 937,517 25,497 25,497 25,497 9,306,433 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 786 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 Apartments Low Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 40 / 53 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 513 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 Apartments High Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 534 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 786 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 41 / 53 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 Apartments Low Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 513 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 Apartments High Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 534 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 3617419.5 1,205,807 0.00 0.00 — 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 42 / 53 Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,451,670 532 0.0330 0.0040 4,398,310 Apartments Low Rise 3,232,943 532 0.0330 0.0040 13,745,684 Apartments High Rise 1,957,555 532 0.0330 0.0040 5,931,054 5.11.2. Mitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 10,261 532 0.0330 0.0040 4,053,836 Apartments Low Rise 2,100,267 532 0.0330 0.0040 12,686,158 Apartments High Rise 913,001 532 0.0330 0.0040 5,470,231 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 43 / 53 Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,860,157 125,422,998 Apartments Low Rise 31,634,123 73,472,641 Apartments High Rise 20,038,697 99,076,752 5.12.2. Mitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 12,695,032 125,422,998 Apartments Low Rise 27,025,031 73,472,641 Apartments High Rise 17,119,059 99,076,752 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 293 — Apartments Low Rise 623 — Apartments High Rise 395 — 5.13.2. Mitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Mid Rise 293 — Apartments Low Rise 623 — Apartments High Rise 395 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 44 / 53 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Apartments High Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments High Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.14.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 45 / 53 Apartments High Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments High Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.15.2. Mitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 46 / 53 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 47 / 53 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.28 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 4.74 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 48 / 53 The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 24.9 AQ-PM 60.5 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 49 / 53 AQ-DPM 40.5 Drinking Water 9.13 Lead Risk Housing 59.7 Pesticides 36.1 Toxic Releases 95.0 Traffic 53.4 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 90.0 Groundwater 88.5 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.8 Impaired Water Bodies 91.9 Solid Waste 67.5 Sensitive Population — Asthma 8.70 Cardio-vascular 22.7 Low Birth Weights 7.95 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 21.7 Housing 58.8 Linguistic 5.64 Poverty 0.83 Unemployment 32.3 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 97.84421917 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 50 / 53 Employed 59.16848454 Median HI 93.10920056 Education — Bachelor's or higher 89.32375209 High school enrollment 12.79353266 Preschool enrollment 95.7141024 Transportation — Auto Access 93.63531374 Active commuting 53.95868087 Social — 2-parent households 51.8285641 Voting 90.4016425 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 51.59758758 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 52.62414988 Supermarket access 74.83639163 Tree canopy 28.25612729 Housing — Homeownership 99.76902348 Housing habitability 85.98742461 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.05889901 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 54.20248941 Uncrowded housing 83.16437829 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 89.59322469 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 89.7 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 51 / 53 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 87.6 Cognitively Disabled 60.3 Physically Disabled 86.7 Heart Attack ER Admissions 70.3 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 19.2 Children 95.4 Elderly 10.4 English Speaking 98.1 Foreign-born 4.6 Outdoor Workers 93.2 Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 52 / 53 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 30.4 Traffic Density 43.9 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 11.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 93.7 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)23.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)92.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Seal Beach HE Update - Full Buildout Ops (Mitigated) v2 Detailed Report, 2/27/2025 53 / 53 Land Use Acreage adjusted to match the estimated developable acres of Site No. 5. Construction: Trips and VMT Haul truck trips added into Demo and Site Prep phases to account for assumed material transport. Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation rates updated per project-specific TIA. Trip lengths kept as defaults. Operations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves. AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B ENERGY CALCULATIONS IJ Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Update Project—Energy Consumption Summary Date of Last Revision: October 22, 2024 Summary of Energy Use During Construction Annual Fuel Use Construction On-Road Vehicle Fuel (D)9,224 gallons (diesel) Construction On-Road Vehicle Fuel (G)69,952 gallons (gasoline) Construction On-Road Vehicle Fuel (E)35,411 kWh Construction Off-Road Equipment Fuel 46,170 gallons (diesel) Summary of Energy Use During Operations Annual Fuel Use Operational On-Road Vehicle Fuel (D)133,422 gallons (diesel) Operational On-Road Vehicle Fuel (G)1,137,357 gallons (gasoline) Operational On-Road Vehicle Fuel (E)895,624 kWh Building Electricity (unmitigated)6,642,169 kWh Building Natural Gas (unmitigated)24,075,048 kBTU Construction On-Road Vehicle Fuel Calculations Housing Opportunity Site No. 4 of Seal Beach HE Update Project Construction Schedule Construction Phase Name Start Date End Date Number of Days Demolition 1/1/2025 1/29/2025 20 Site Preparation 1/30/2025 2/13/2025 10 Grading 2/14/2025 3/28/2025 30 Building Construction 3/29/2025 5/23/2026 300 Paving 5/24/2026 6/21/2026 20 Architectural Coating 6/22/2026 7/20/2026 20 Construction Trips and VMT Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Onsite Truck Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Onsite Truck Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Onsite Truck Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trips Vendor Trips Onsite Truck Trips Hauling Trips Demolition 15 0 0 10 18.5 10.2 0 20 20 300 0 0 200 5,550 0 0 4,000 Site Preparation 18 0 0 15 18.5 10.2 0 20 10 175 0 0 150 3,238 0 0 3,000 Grading 15 0 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 20 30 450 0 0 0 8,325 0 0 0 Building Construction 331 49 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 20 300 99,360 14,752 0 0 1,838,160 150,472 0 0 Paving 15 0 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 20 20 300 0 0 0 5,550 0 0 0 Architectural Coating 66 0 0 0 18.5 10.2 0 20 20 1,325 0 0 0 24,509 0 0 0 1,885,331 150,472 0 7,000 2,042,804 Trip Type VMT VMT Consumption VMT Consumption VMT Consumption Worker Trips 1,885,331 1,788,309 65,515 8,048 258 88,975 34,352 Vendor Trips 150,472 56,063 4,436 93,007 7,819 1,402 977 Hauling Trips 7,000 3 1 6,951 1,146 45 82 TOTALS 2,042,804 1,844,375 69,952 108,006 9,224 90,423 35,411 2,042,804 Statewide Consumption 13,629,998,406 3,067,876,790 0.0005%0.0003% Total Project Construction VMT (miles)0.0015%0.0009% 2,042,804 Gasoline Diesel Electric VMT per Phase Phase Name Number of Days per Phase Trips per Day Construction Trip Length in Miles Trips per Phase Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled Region Type: County FE = Fuel Economy Region: Orange Calendar Year: 2025 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle CategoModel Year Speed Fuel Population VMT (mi/day)% of Fleet Energy Consumption (kWh/day) Fuel Consumption (1000 gallons/day) FE (mi/gallon)/( mi/kWh)VMT*FE Orange 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6.7222924 572.5132259 0.04%0 0.132943836 4.3064293 2465.488 Orange 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11420.65 1281007.926 99.31%0 211.237609 6.0642985 7768415 Orange 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 83.088293 8366.060491 0.65%15115.80723 0 0.5534644 4630.316 Orange 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1056312.5 41885606.83 91.86%0 1364.761186 30.690796 1.29E+09 Orange 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3018.2865 89138.09087 0.20%0 2.06406705 43.185657 3849487 Orange 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 74944.83 3623884.151 7.95%1399118.378 0 2.5901198 9386294 Orange 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 96356.973 3443415.123 99.60%0 134.366068 25.627118 88244807 Orange 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28.508221 428.3760164 0.01%0 0.017924086 23.899462 10237.96 Orange 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 292.06875 13382.73952 0.39%5166.841994 0 2.5901198 34662.9 Orange 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 529834.47 21568112.97 98.89%0 860.9716631 25.050898 5.4E+08 Orange 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2111.5254 87946.98549 0.40%0 2.68272495 32.782707 2883140 Orange 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4251.5063 154415.472 0.71%59617.11678 0 2.5901198 399954.6 Orange 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 41223.987 1660486.368 62.85%0 115.6151536 14.362186 23848214 Orange 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 22344.745 951494.9678 36.01%0 45.63388289 20.850625 19839265 Orange 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 428.31076 30121.52667 1.14%16925.44598 0 1.7796593 53606.05 Orange 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6668.4375 250352.8675 37.61%0 19.99612697 12.520068 3134435 Orange 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9609.5748 407866.7845 61.28%0 23.15667142 17.61336 7183904 Orange 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 110.61689 7389.195621 1.11%4155.863955 0 1.7780167 13138.11 Orange 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 325579.96 12660247.41 97.33%0 622.3110176 20.343923 2.58E+08 Orange 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4600.6408 180507.4796 1.39%0 7.379567219 24.460442 4415293 Orange 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4586.9893 166596.8195 1.28%64320.12231 0 2.5901198 431505.7 Orange 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 7268.4134 379776.8426 24.47%0 73.08335708 5.1964887 1973506 Orange 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28028.877 1160618.703 74.79%0 129.2771257 8.9777576 10419753 Orange 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 222.61699 11431.93425 0.74%11989.52129 0 0.9534938 10900.28 gas diesel elec Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)2171607099 11158158 10252417.11 Total VMT 79557382.33 358020.932 3958279.182 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 27.29611049 31.16621686 2.590119756 Percentage 95%0%5% Vendor (HHDT, LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT) Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)28958620.95 45211336.86 82274.76199 Total VMT 2291188.592 3800988.381 57308.71702 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 12.63912585 11.89462643 1.435641317 Percentage 37%62%1% Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)284541747.5 31438461.75 498249.8807 Total VMT 14571086.64 1539869.232 204107.5418 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 19.52783306 20.41631919 2.441114504 Percentage 89%9%1% Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)2465.487715 7768414.507 4630.316268 Total VMT 572.5132259 1281007.926 8366.060491 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 4.306429273 6.06429855 0.553464354 Percentage 0%99%1% Given Calculations 2026 Haul (HHDT) Worker (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV) Onsite Trucks (LHDT1, LHDT2, MDV) Construction Off-Road Equipment Fuel Calculation Housing Opportunity Site No. 4 of Seal Beach HE Update Project Construction Schedule Construction Phase Name Start Date End Date Number of Days Demolition 1/1/2025 1/29/2025 20 Site Preparation 1/30/2025 2/13/2025 10 Grading 2/14/2025 3/28/2025 30 Building Construction 3/29/2025 5/23/2026 300 Paving 5/24/2026 6/21/2026 20 Architectural Coating 6/22/2026 7/20/2026 20 Construction Equipment Phase Name Standardized Equipment Type HP Bin Equipment Type + HP Bin Amount Use Hours per Day Horse Power Load Factor Number of Days HP Hours Fuel (gallons/HP- hour) Diesel Fuel Usage Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 600 Rubber Tired Dozers 600 2 8 367 0.4 20 46,976.00 0.045360697 2130.864102 Demolition Excavators 50 Excavators 50 3 8 36 0.38 20 6,566.40 0.056097854 368.3609507 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 50 Concrete/Industrial Saws 50 1 8 33 0.73 20 3,854.40 0.041778545 161.0312236 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 600 Rubber Tired Dozers 600 3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232.00 0.045360697 1598.148077 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 4 8 84 0.37 10 9,945.60 0.056488273 561.8097728 Grading Graders 175 Graders 175 1 8 148 0.41 30 14,563.20 0.053828804 783.9196317 Grading Excavators 50 Excavators 50 2 8 36 0.38 30 6,566.40 0.056097854 368.3609507 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 2 8 84 0.37 30 14,918.40 0.056488273 842.7146592 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 600 Rubber Tired Dozers 600 1 8 367 0.4 30 35,232.00 0.045360697 1598.148077 Grading Scrapers 600 Scrapers 600 2 8 423 0.48 30 97,459.20 0.047681676 4647.017963 Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts 75 Rough Terrain Forklifts 75 3 8 82 0.2 300 118,080.00 0.056397679 6659.43796 Building Construction Generator Sets 15 Generator Sets 15 1 8 14 0.74 300 24,864.00 0.042313653 1052.086662 Building Construction Cranes 600 Cranes 600 1 7 367 0.29 300 223,503.00 0.051529327 11516.95926 Building Construction Welders 50 Welders 50 1 8 46 0.45 300 49,680.00 0.025812315 1282.355817 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 3 7 84 0.37 300 195,804.00 0.056488273 11060.6299 Paving Pavers 100 Pavers 100 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886.40 0.056536354 615.4773657 Paving Paving Equipment 100 Paving Equipment 100 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,252.80 0.059586515 610.9286182 Paving Rollers 50 Rollers 50 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,377.60 0.057851044 253.2487304 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 50 Air Compressors 50 1 6 37 0.48 20 2,131.20 0.027574332 58.76641691 46,170.27 Notes: Source of usage estimates: California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2024. OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory 0.0015%0.004% Website: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/offroad/emissions-inventory/21d33152fb51a3d56eeba52cc9a2a7b426d5034f. Accessed January 31, 2024. Operational Fuel Calculation—Project-Generated Operational Trips Total Operational VMT Seal Beach HE Update Project Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,798 1,798 1,798 656,212 17,847 17,847 17,847 6,514,003 Apartments Low Rise 5,682 5,682 5,682 2,073,864 256,402 56,402 56,402 20,586,589 Apartments High Rise 2,569 2,569 2,569 937,517 25,497 25,497 25,497 9,306,433 Total Annual VMT 36,407,025 VMT Consumption VMT Consumption VMT Consumption Passenger Cars (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV)0.9236 33,625,528 31,463,781 1,069,206 124,755 3,881 2,036,992 786,447 Trucks (HHDT, MHDT, LHDT1, LHDT2)0.0701 2,552,132 848,520 61,979 1,551,371 125,861 152,241 106,883 Motor Homes and Buses (MCY, MH, OBUS, SBUS, UB 0.0063 229,364 196,061 6,171 31,265 3,679 2,038 2,294 Total 1.0000 36,407,025 32,508,363 1,137,357 1,707,391 133,422 2,191,271 895,624 36,407,025 *Note: Fleet mix pulled from CalEEMod defaults 13,629,998,406 3,067,876,790 Gasoline Diesel Electric Vehicle Type Fraction of 1 Annual VMT Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory Region Type: County Region: Orange Calendar Year: 2025 Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region CalYr Vehicle Class + HP Bin Model Year Fuel Fuel Consumption (gallons/year) Horsepower Hours (HP- hours/year) Fuel Efficiency (gallons/HP-hour) Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 100 Aggregate Diesel 8047.956398 143130.4005 0.056228141 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 175 Aggregate Diesel 57784.34477 1149682.507 0.050261132 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 300 Aggregate Diesel 68721.21865 1368634.032 0.050211537 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 50 Aggregate Diesel 2727.061314 48627.6513 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 600 Aggregate Diesel 98845.90753 1984167.838 0.049817312 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 75 Aggregate Diesel 10526.74281 186862.1108 0.056334282 Orange 2025 Cranes 100 Aggregate Diesel 3730.920371 45691.9119 0.081653847 Orange 2025 Cranes 175 Aggregate Diesel 27948.95982 473921.8272 0.058973776 Orange 2025 Cranes 25 Aggregate Diesel 7.504915654 133.8240616 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Cranes 300 Aggregate Diesel 90421.6181 1699779.135 0.053196098 Orange 2025 Cranes 50 Aggregate Diesel 317.4093014 3720.171057 0.085321158 Orange 2025 Cranes 600 Aggregate Diesel 126004.2459 2445291.882 0.051529327 Orange 2025 Cranes 75 Aggregate Diesel 1233.65802 15719.7116 0.078478413 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 100 Aggregate Diesel 41846.36245 718287.4958 0.058258514 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 175 Aggregate Diesel 151203.9201 2978733.396 0.050761146 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 300 Aggregate Diesel 187184.9854 3693148.302 0.050684394 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 50 Aggregate Diesel 1593.150587 24985.74282 0.063762386 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 600 Aggregate Diesel 328163.2929 6614937.188 0.049609434 Orange 2025 Crawler Tractors 75 Aggregate Diesel 10863.53913 181145.8738 0.05997122 Orange 2025 Excavators 100 Aggregate Diesel 104118.9426 1848175.565 0.056336067 Orange 2025 Excavators 175 Aggregate Diesel 587497.315 11642564.64 0.05046116 Orange 2025 Excavators 25 Aggregate Diesel 4.492051707 80.10011468 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Excavators 300 Aggregate Diesel 628568.0585 12464545.5 0.050428478 Orange 2025 Excavators 50 Aggregate Diesel 168671.7025 3006740.712 0.056097854 Orange 2025 Excavators 600 Aggregate Diesel 725662.1502 14423719.46 0.050310334 Orange 2025 Excavators 75 Aggregate Diesel 133908.8034 2382098.988 0.056214626 Orange 2025 Graders 100 Aggregate Diesel 4309.538077 71459.00663 0.060307836 Orange 2025 Graders 175 Aggregate Diesel 68870.6614 1279438.83 0.053828804 Orange 2025 Graders 300 Aggregate Diesel 227458.8536 4470068.303 0.050884872 Orange 2025 Graders 50 Aggregate Diesel 528.6503952 8762.07119 0.060333953 Orange 2025 Graders 600 Aggregate Diesel 54993.71001 1090934.916 0.050409707 Orange 2025 Graders 75 Aggregate Diesel 2023.520067 27565.68917 0.0734072 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 15 Aggregate Diesel 14.84514218 0 0 Orange 2025 Bore/Drill Rigs 25 Aggregate Diesel 68.74970391 0 0 Orange 2025 Cement And Mortar Mixers 15 Aggregate Diesel 102.4155322 0 0 Orange 2025 Cement And Mortar Mixers 25 Aggregate Diesel 19.9940538 0 0 Orange 2025 Concrete/Industrial Saws 25 Aggregate Diesel 13.71482815 0 0 Orange 2025 Concrete/Industrial Saws 50 Aggregate Diesel 4770.55 114186.6 0.041778545 Orange 2025 Dumpers/Tenders 25 Aggregate Diesel 9.869450947 0 0 Orange 2025 Excavators 25 Aggregate Diesel 70.49524482 0 0 Orange 2025 Other 15 Aggregate Diesel 225.6256843 0 0 Orange 2025 Other 25 Aggregate Diesel 36.87567026 0 0 Orange 2025 Pavers 25 Aggregate Diesel 18.52927664 0 0 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 25 Aggregate Diesel 31.49191056 0 0 Orange 2025 Plate Compactors 15 Aggregate Diesel 88.09380801 0 0 Orange 2025 Rollers 15 Aggregate Diesel 319.481019 0 0 Orange 2025 Rollers 25 Aggregate Diesel 221.0333329 0 0 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 25 Aggregate Diesel 12.82136126 0 0 Orange 2025 Signal Boards 15 Aggregate Diesel 1377.029059 0 0 Orange 2025 Signal Boards 50 Aggregate Diesel 2102.4 47267.5 0.044478764 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 25 Aggregate Diesel 3632.492465 0 0 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 Aggregate Diesel 337.3350078 0 0 Orange 2025 Trenchers 15 Aggregate Diesel 126.503726 0 0 Orange 2025 Trenchers 25 Aggregate Diesel 327.6747419 0 0 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 100 Aggregate Diesel 23758.49872 422684.1397 0.056208635 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 175 Aggregate Diesel 129148.7508 2564191.879 0.050366258 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 300 Aggregate Diesel 57920.67328 1155692.929 0.050117702 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 50 Aggregate Diesel 28406.58821 494337.0239 0.057464011 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 600 Aggregate Diesel 152814.986 3092350.713 0.049417094 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Tractors 75 Aggregate Diesel 24896.68206 428381.5809 0.058118003 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 100 Aggregate Diesel 645.2765976 11506.26325 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 175 Aggregate Diesel 33274.11327 660043.1152 0.05041203 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 300 Aggregate Diesel 77912.23009 1550989.375 0.05023389 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 50 Aggregate Diesel 1215.570396 21675.46913 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 600 Aggregate Diesel 573074.9857 11427939.27 0.050146835 Orange 2025 Off-Highway Trucks 75 Aggregate Diesel 1359.024354 22603.7471 0.060123852 Orange 2025 Pavers 100 Aggregate Diesel 14480.20603 256122.0342 0.056536354 Orange 2025 Pavers 175 Aggregate Diesel 48715.56932 965140.7252 0.050475095 Orange 2025 Pavers 300 Aggregate Diesel 59154.13573 1172535.869 0.050449745 Orange 2025 Pavers 50 Aggregate Diesel 2630.939589 46229.38633 0.056910545 Orange 2025 Pavers 600 Aggregate Diesel 10476.3768 209394.1281 0.050031856 Orange 2025 Pavers 75 Aggregate Diesel 13394.8975 235734.0187 0.056822081 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 100 Aggregate Diesel 8237.251878 138240.2028 0.059586515 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 175 Aggregate Diesel 54084.53736 1068816.847 0.05060225 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 300 Aggregate Diesel 24361.59164 481587.9282 0.050585968 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 50 Aggregate Diesel 6793.258491 119265.0548 0.056959337 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 600 Aggregate Diesel 57739.53475 1150296.137 0.050195365 Orange 2025 Paving Equipment 75 Aggregate Diesel 4935.770453 88012.29484 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Rollers 100 Aggregate Diesel 40676.60129 700979.0809 0.058028267 Orange 2025 Rollers 175 Aggregate Diesel 233843.3844 4622563.726 0.050587379 Orange 2025 Rollers 300 Aggregate Diesel 20126.07946 390708.7805 0.051511715 Orange 2025 Rollers 50 Aggregate Diesel 65650.46014 1134818.934 0.057851044 Orange 2025 Rollers 600 Aggregate Diesel 16280.52885 330715.3023 0.04922823 Orange 2025 Rollers 75 Aggregate Diesel 26095.92961 462173.0614 0.056463545 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 Aggregate Diesel 58194.07133 1005509.271 0.057875221 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 175 Aggregate Diesel 374083.8757 7410863.024 0.050477775 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 300 Aggregate Diesel 3193.989513 62262.30311 0.05129893 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 50 Aggregate Diesel 2092.573628 37313.77075 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 600 Aggregate Diesel 910.1322636 18007.09776 0.050542973 Orange 2025 Rough Terrain Forklifts 75 Aggregate Diesel 83132.66172 1474044.019 0.056397679 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 100 Aggregate Diesel 2840.834499 48071.95498 0.059095464 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 175 Aggregate Diesel 8841.300714 174865.2787 0.050560642 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 300 Aggregate Diesel 11067.85188 219207.8885 0.050490208 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 50 Aggregate Diesel 617.8911745 6702.315588 0.092190701 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 600 Aggregate Diesel 58584.64601 1291528.788 0.045360697 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Dozers 75 Aggregate Diesel 1358.718182 21607.24532 0.062882527 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 100 Aggregate Diesel 50440.1934 879117.7682 0.057375923 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 175 Aggregate Diesel 382550.4847 7569437.293 0.050538827 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 300 Aggregate Diesel 719017.2735 14266532.67 0.05039888 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 50 Aggregate Diesel 3992.679395 67437.96245 0.05920522 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 600 Aggregate Diesel 554582.3176 11083273.54 0.050037772 Orange 2025 Rubber Tired Loaders 75 Aggregate Diesel 30894.19523 535259.5018 0.057718163 Orange 2025 Scrapers 100 Aggregate Diesel 1521.020472 24043.73784 0.063260566 Orange 2025 Scrapers 175 Aggregate Diesel 12301.15724 238516.1225 0.051573693 Orange 2025 Scrapers 300 Aggregate Diesel 179872.0337 3432258.382 0.052406321 Orange 2025 Scrapers 50 Aggregate Diesel 175.5888662 1500.983487 0.116982544 Orange 2025 Scrapers 600 Aggregate Diesel 633526.4096 13286580.24 0.047681676 Orange 2025 Scrapers 75 Aggregate Diesel 1252.787239 20099.42569 0.062329504 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 100 Aggregate Diesel 230761.6787 4109400.757 0.056154581 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 175 Aggregate Diesel 67798.38672 1342350.673 0.05050721 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 300 Aggregate Diesel 5546.090085 109943.4623 0.050444928 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 50 Aggregate Diesel 63936.44225 1115784.766 0.05730177 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 600 Aggregate Diesel 3852.461967 76369.65873 0.050444928 Orange 2025 Skid Steer Loaders 75 Aggregate Diesel 454481.9497 8083366.967 0.056224337 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 100 Aggregate Diesel 1667.41534 24301.16706 0.06861462 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 175 Aggregate Diesel 6163.578159 121520.0276 0.050720678 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 300 Aggregate Diesel 7215.037953 141039.1791 0.051156267 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 50 Aggregate Diesel 732.5983429 11199.20912 0.065415186 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 600 Aggregate Diesel 41383.53328 822464.2522 0.050316513 Orange 2025 Surfacing Equipment 75 Aggregate Diesel 1250.68493 19736.1493 0.063370261 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Aggregate Diesel 700686.4623 12404104.76 0.056488273 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 175 Aggregate Diesel 742452.0073 14668171.59 0.050616534 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 Aggregate Diesel 15.15233424 270.1891674 0.056080465 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 300 Aggregate Diesel 314515.8355 6228391.036 0.050497124 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 50 Aggregate Diesel 65944.63594 1115802.968 0.05910061 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 600 Aggregate Diesel 239665.0947 4769953.061 0.050244749 Orange 2025 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 75 Aggregate Diesel 299556.8192 5234721.391 0.057224979 Orange 2025 Trenchers 100 Aggregate Diesel 7842.968073 137395.109 0.057083313 Orange 2025 Trenchers 175 Aggregate Diesel 12803.38088 251592.4386 0.050889371 Orange 2025 Trenchers 300 Aggregate Diesel 7693.547354 151975.9281 0.05062346 Orange 2025 Trenchers 50 Aggregate Diesel 20237.57453 354993.7389 0.057008258 Orange 2025 Trenchers 600 Aggregate Diesel 12489.37165 252381.5336 0.049486076 Orange 2025 Trenchers 75 Aggregate Diesel 6504.12176 110639.6964 0.058786511 Orange 2025 Air Compressors 50 Aggregate Diesel 91947.15 3334519.55 0.027574332 Orange 2025 Generator Sets 15 Aggregate Diesel 253335.55 5987087.7 0.042313653 Orange 2025 Welders 50 Aggregate Diesel 422016.65 16349430.4 0.025812315 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled Region Type: County FE = Fuel Economy Region: Orange Calendar Year: 2029 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Calculations Region Calendar Year Vehicle Class Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Energy Consumptio n Fuel Consumptio n FE (mi/gallon)/(mi/ kWh)VMT*FE Orange 2029 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 12191.4017 1327935.748 0 207.4294256 6.40186774 8501269.027 Orange 2029 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1925.877657 58348.44754 0 1.287785666 45.30912952 2643717.367 Orange 2029 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2.902217211 55.85633946 0 0.002102861 26.56206625 1483.659789 Orange 2029 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2216.820715 89349.39377 0 2.549871681 35.04074124 3130868.987 Orange 2029 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 24434.47216 1013330.39 0 47.8258656 21.18791531 21470358.48 Orange 2029 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10948.49634 447485.6852 0 24.82858777 18.02300193 8065035.366 Orange 2029 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4422.111559 168242.7577 0 6.460445706 26.04197377 4381373.483 Orange 2029 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3027.333223 29055.74108 0 2.863629808 10.14647249 294813.2775 Orange 2029 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 29061.59525 1142312.203 0 125.2548755 9.119902108 10417775.47 Orange 2029 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 526.8225109 37172.07412 0 4.920352281 7.554758684 280826.0498 Orange 2029 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 651.9418709 13265.18631 0 1.761992045 7.528516574 99867.17503 Orange 2029 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 522.0698146 52092.53799 94345.67217 0 0.552145496 28762.66024 Orange 2029 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 98016.32358 4514188.416 1742849.305 0 2.590119756 11692288.6 Orange 2029 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 662.9227227 32054.50283 12375.6837 0 2.590119756 83025.00105 Orange 2029 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8828.976102 304521.1035 117570.2794 0 2.590119756 788746.1262 Orange 2029 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3159.739873 197245.2106 111020.6576 0 1.776653236 350436.3417 Orange 2029 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 825.914217 49071.70376 27641.13103 0 1.77531461 87117.71263 Orange 2029 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8994.905126 308794.0816 119220.0016 0 2.590119756 799813.6512 Orange 2029 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1742.62018 87359.31243 91767.73915 0 0.95196104 83162.66194 Orange 2029 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 36.31806959 2640.030273 2751.818001 0 0.959376773 2532.783724 Orange 2029 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 71.74051726 2213.73253 2559.741896 0 0.864826463 1914.494474 Orange 2029 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.944034594 327.053411 695.8022999 0 0.470037841 153.7274793 Orange 2029 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.943091464 533.4895587 0 0.114806492 4.646858793 2479.050647 Orange 2029 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1034856.174 41149375.45 0 1241.885608 33.13459404 1363467851 Orange 2029 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 91581.52842 3277866.345 0 119.5500421 27.41836211 89873726.39 Orange 2029 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 555722.2366 22415240.23 0 825.9977049 27.13717011 608286187.2 Orange 2029 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 40268.54793 1609503.505 0 104.948662 15.33610314 24683511.75 Orange 2029 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6367.767391 235311.5961 0 17.70025781 13.29424682 3128290.439 Orange 2029 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 53993.0701 341399.2508 0 7.997771221 42.68679878 14573241.12 Orange 2029 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 331005.2666 12853071.73 0 582.5334921 22.06409057 283591338.7 Orange 2029 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5192.597132 52456.55971 0 10.74280936 4.882946161 256142.5569 Orange 2029 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6434.040691 304742.1499 0 57.27871773 5.320338198 1621331.3 Orange 2029 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 761.1596295 30255.30829 0 5.525730761 5.475349704 165658.3933 Orange 2029 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 702.653337 31753.64333 0 3.510382783 9.04563556 287231.8853 Orange 2029 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 258.4023617 42628.96157 0 3.268690854 13.0416009 555949.9035 Passenger Cars (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV)gas diesel elec Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)2345219103 10157443.5 13363873.4 Total VMT 79695553.8 315996.4553 5159558.1 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 29.4272264 32.14416911 2.59011976 Percentage 94%0%6% Trucks (HHDT, MHDT, LHDT1, LHDT2) Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)29435612.5 48454438.34 549479.376 Total VMT 2150090.74 3931064.026 385768.765 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 13.6904048 12.32603642 1.42437498 Percentage 33%61%6% Motor Homes and Buses (MCY, MH, OBUS, SBUS, UBUS) Sum of VMT*FE (Column BI)15838223.9 675506.5023 4601.00568 Total VMT 498493.724 79493.00151 5180.81621 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 31.772163 8.497685198 0.8880851 Percentage 85%14%1% Given Building Energy From CalEEMod Results Tab 5.11.1 Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,451,670.30 4,398,309.79 Apartments Low Rise 3,232,943.00 13,745,684.00 Apartments High Rise 1,957,555.41 5,931,054.11 Totals*6,642,169 24,075,048 *does not account for implementation of any mitigation Appendix C Biological Resources Technical Report CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Biological Resources Technical Report October 25, 2024 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Project Number: 2042665000 () Stantec CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 The conclusions in the Report titled City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Biological Resources Technical Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from City of Seal Beach (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result. Prepared by: Hannah Hart, Project Biologist Printed Name Signature Allison Loveless, Associate Biologist Printed Name Signature Reviewed by: Logan Elms, Senior Biologist Printed Name Signature Approved by: Jared Varonin, Senior Principal Biologist/Business Center Practice Leader B ~r f 7'~ :f> CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 i Table of Contents ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. III 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 METHODS .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Biological Habitat Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5 3 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 7 3.1 Federal Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................................ 7 3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................. 7 3.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668) ...................................................... 8 3.1.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ................................................................................................ 8 3.1.6 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1.7 Clean Water Act Section 404 and Federal Jurisdictional Waters ................................................. 9 3.2 State Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code .................................................................. 15 3.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act .................................................................................. 15 3.2.5 State-Regulated Habitats ............................................................................................................ 16 3.2.6 Native Plant Protection Act .......................................................................................................... 16 3.2.7 California Native Plant Society Rare Plant program ................................................................... 16 3.2.8 California Coastal Commission and Coastal Act of 1976 ............................................................ 17 3.3 Local Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Orange County General Plan – Chapter VI. Resource Element ................................................. 18 3.3.2 City of Seal Beach General Plan – Open Space / Recreation / Conservation Element ............. 20 3.3.3 Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................... 20 3.3.4 Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 21 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 22 4.1 Setting.......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ........................................................................ 22 4.2.1 Land Cover Types ....................................................................................................................... 23 4.3 Topography and Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 23 4.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 24 4.5 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.5.1 Coastal Zone ............................................................................................................................... 26 4.5.2 National Wetlands Inventory ....................................................................................................... 26 4.6 Common Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 26 4.6.1 Terrestrial Invertebrates .............................................................................................................. 26 4.6.2 Fish .............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.6.3 Amphibians .................................................................................................................................. 27 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 ii 4.6.4 Reptiles ........................................................................................................................................ 27 4.6.5 Birds............................................................................................................................................. 28 4.6.6 Mammals ..................................................................................................................................... 28 5 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 29 5.1 Special-Status Natural Communities ........................................................................................... 29 5.2 Designated Critical Habitat .......................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Special-Status Plants .................................................................................................................. 30 5.4 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 38 5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Special Linkages ...................................................................................... 50 5.5.1 Wildlife movement in the Project Area ........................................................................................ 51 6 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 52 6.1 Potential Onsite Impacts.............................................................................................................. 52 6.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Areas ........................................................................................... 53 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 54 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program ..................................................................... 2 Table 2. Hydrologic Units Above the Coyote Creek – San Gabriel River Subwatershed ........................... 23 Table 3. Hydrologic Units Above the Huntington Beach - Pacific Ocean and Anaheim Bay Subwatersheds .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 4. Historic Soil Units Occurring within the Project area .................................................................... 24 Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species and Their Habitat Evaluated for Potential Occurrence .................. 31 Table 6. Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program ............................................................................................................................ 36 Table 7. Special-Status Animal Species and Their Habitat Evaluated for Potential Occurrence ............... 39 Table 8. Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program ............................................................................................................................ 46 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES APPENDIX B USFWS IPAC SPECIES LIST IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 iii Acronyms / Abbreviations BGEPA BRTR CCC CCMP CCR CDFG CDFW CEQA CESA City County CNDDB CNPS CRPR CWA CZMA DCH ºF FESA FGC FR GIS HCP IPaC LCP LSAA MBTA NCCP NEPA NMFS NOAA NPPA NRCS NWI NWPR NWR Project OCTA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Biological Resources Technical Report California Coastal Commission California Coastal Management Program California Code of Regulations California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Environmental Quality Act California Endangered Species Act City of Seal Beach Orange County California Natural Diversity Database California Native Plant Society California Rare Plant Rank Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Area Designated Critical Habitat Fahrenheit Federal Endangered Species Act Fish and Game Code Federal Register Geographic Information Systems Habitat Conservation Plan Information for Planning and Consulting Local Coastal Program Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Migratory Bird Treaty Act Natural Community Conservation Plan National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Native Plant Protection Act Natural Resources Conservation Service National Wetlands Inventory Navigable Waters Protection Rule National Wildlife Refuge City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Orange County Transportation Authority IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 iv RWQCB SSC Stantec TNW USC USACE USEPA USFWS USGS WOTUS Regional Water Quality Control Board Species of Special Concern Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Traditional navigable waters United States Code United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish & Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Waters of the United States IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 1 1 Introduction This Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) is intended to document the biological resources that are associated with the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) located in the City of Seal Beach (City), California (refer to Appendix A, Figure 1). The analyses presented within this BRTR are intended to support planning and regulatory agency permitting and associated documentation. There were no site visits/surveys conducted for this BRTR. All information was gathered via desktop review of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program (Project area). 1.1 Project Background and Purpose According to the City of Seal Beach’s General Plan and zoning designations, there is currently a need for additional housing to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Housing Element Update identifies housing conditions and needs within the City of Seal Beach and establishes policies and programs that comprise the City’s strategy to accommodate project housing needs, including needs of lower-income housing and special-needs populations. State law requires that where the number of sites do not meet the City’s assigned housing need, the Housing Element must identify actions to accommodate this need. Therefore, the City of Seal Beach is proposing to redevelop/convert underutilized residentially zoned sites and rezone additional locations to remedy this shortfall. The City of Seal Beach adopted the City’s Housing Element Update in early 2022. It was further updated in August 2023 to bring the element into compliance with state legislation and the current Southern California Association of Governments. An Initial Study was prepared in November 2023 for the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update was then updated again in March 2024 in response to comments received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The most up to date version of the Housing Element Update is from August 2024. The purpose of this report is to provide technical analyses for the potential environmental impacts associate with Project implementation at the selected development sites. 1.2 Project Description The City of Seal Beach is proposing implementation of the City’s Housing Element Updates and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The updated Housing Element has identified sites throughout the City with potential to provide additional housing (Housing Opportunity Sites). The City of Seal Beach has almost no vacant residentially zoned developable land remaining, and large areas of vacant land are not available for development due to environmental restrictions or federal ownership. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites that have been selected can be categorized in two ways: Underutilized Sites that do not require zoning code changes, and Candidate Sites for Rezoning. Additionally, the Project area includes the Main Street Program area. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 2 selected and the Main Street Program total approximately 104.45 acres with a developable acreage of 56.05 acres and are the subject of environmental analysis for this report. 1.3 Project Location The City of Seal Beach is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The Project area is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area, totaling approximately 104.45 acres. However, the majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would only allow for development within portions of the overall sites due to existing development; therefore, the total developable area for the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would total 56.05 acres. The Main Street Program falls within the boundaries of the existing Main Street Specific Plan area located within the City and the development potential for the Main Street Program is not based on potential developable acreage but rather the number of units that could be developed at select locations within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Project area is located in the City of Seal Beach and falls within the Seal Beach and Los Alamitos United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles. The locations and descriptions of each are listed in the table below: Table 1. Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program Site # Site Name Acreage Developable Acres U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangles Approximate Centroid Coordinates 1 1780 Pacific Coast 0.23 0.25 Seal Beach 33.74078, -118.09599 2 Leisure World 5.56 5.5 Los Alamitos 33.76584, -118.09206 3 Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) 4.49 1.8 Los Alamitos 33.75382, -118.08733 4 Shops at Rossmoor 26.80 12 Los Alamitos 33.78278, -118.07364 5 Old Ranch Town Center 26.06 8.3 Los Alamitos 33.78211, -118.07009 6 Seal Beach Plaza 8.14 1.5 Los Alamitos 33.76097, -118.07853 7 Seal Beach Center 7.92 2.7 Seal Beach 33.74417, -118.10077 8 99 Marina Drive 4.31 3 Seal Beach 33.74661, -118.10985 - Main Street Program 21 21 Seal Beach 33.74146, -118.10449 Total 104.45 56.05 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 3 The Housing Opportunity Sites are separated into two categories according to zoning needs: Underutilized Sites and Candidates for Rezoning. Underutilized Sites • 1780 Pacific Coast. This 0.23-acre site is developed and contains an older commercial building that is currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. The site is currently zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density which allows residential use at up to 20 units/acre and normally considered suitable for lower-income housing. It is assumed that the entire site will be redeveloped as residential or mixed-use. • Leisure World. This site is approximately 5.56-acres in size and almost entirely comprised of truck and trailer parking, with a few permanent structures. The north and east boundaries are lined with trees. The site is currently zoned as Residential High Density-Planned Community. It is anticipated that this site will be redeveloped for residential uses. Candidate Sites for Rezoning • Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.). This site is approximately 4.49-acres in size and located immediately south of the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems property. The location is currently being used for vehicle and boat storage and is bordered by office, commercial, and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. This site is currently zoned as Residential High Density and is suitable for lower-income multi- family development. • The Shops at Rossmoor. This site is approximately 26.80-acres in size and is currently developed as a shopping center. The site is currently zoned as General Commercial. The surface parking area occupies approximately 70 percent of the site or 19 acres. By converting 10 acres of the surface parking to residential housing, the existing development could remain in place. • Old Ranch Town Center. This site is approximately 26.06-acres in size with approximately half of that devoted to surface parking. The remaining 13-acres is developed as shops and restaurants. The site is currently zoned as Commercial General. By converting 5 acres of the surface parking are to residential uses, all retail uses can remain in place and not pose an impediment to residential development. • Seal Beach Plaza. This site is approximately 8.14-acres in size and currently developed with retail and office uses. The site is currently zoned as Commercial Service-Service Commercial. The site is proposed for partial or entire redevelopment. • Seal Beach Center. This site is approximately 7.92-acres and consists of retail uses. The site is currently zoned as Service Commercial. Partial site redevelopment is anticipated and would include a mixed-use building with ground floor retail and residential units above. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 4 • 99 Marina Drive. This site is approximately 4.31-acres in size and is currently vacant except for an abandoned outdoor handball court. The site is currently zoned as Oil Extraction. It is anticipated that this site will be redeveloped for residential uses. • Main Street Program. This site is approximately 21-acres and is located in downtown Seal Beach and is designated as the commercial core of the city. This site is developed with a mix of offices and retail uses, with a few residential units, and currently zoned under the Main Street Specific Plan. It is anticipated that several underutilized parcels will accommodate residential housing development on this site. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 2 Methods Project Number: 2042665000 5 2 Methods Stantec conducted a literature and database review to evaluate sensitive species that have been documented within the vicinity of the Project and their potential to occur in the Project area based on the presence of habitat. 2.1 Literature Review A query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted for the Project area and a surrounding ten-mile buffer area to determine special-status plants, wildlife, and sensitive vegetation communities that have been documented within this area (CDFW 2024a). The database included portions of the following quadrangles surrounding the Project area: Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Long Beach, San Pedro, Newport Beach, Anaheim, Torrance, Orange, La Habra, and Whittier. The list of special-status plants, animals, and sensitive natural communities documented to occur within the search area is included in Section 5. Additional data regarding the potential occurrence of special-status species and policies relating to these special-status natural resources were gathered from the following sources: • Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] 2024); • CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2024b); • United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) Species List (USFWS 2024a) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data (USFWS 2024b); • National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) GIS data (USGS 2024); • The Jepson Manual (Baldwin, et al. 2012); and • Aerial imagery of the Project area and surrounding areas. 2.2 Biological Habitat Assessment Biological field surveys were not conducted for this assessment; however, a desktop review using high- resolution aerial imagery and previously prepared reports in the vicinity were utilized to determine the habitat types located in the project and surrounding areas. The primary goals of the habitat assessment are to identify and assess the suitability of habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species within the Project area. A Manual of California Vegetation IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 2 Methods Project Number: 2042665000 6 (Sawyer et al. 2009) was consulted to determine the natural communities present in the Project area; however, none of the habitat types identified on aerial imagery met the description for natural community. Therefore, all areas were characterized as land cover types. The land cover types determined to be present within the Project area were evaluated for their potential to support special-status species based on species habitat requirements in the literature and the professional knowledge and experience of Stantec’s biologists. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 7 3 Regulatory Environment 3.1 Federal Regulations 3.1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires all federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA into other planning requirements and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making. NEPA requires Federal agencies to review and comment on Federal agency environmental plans and documents when the agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impacts involved (42 United States Code [USC] 4321- 4327; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR 1500-1508]). These guidelines establish an overall federal process for the environmental evaluation of projects. 3.1.2 FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful “take” and ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of Designated Critical Habitat (DCH). Under FESA, take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR Section 17.3). DCH is defined in FESA Section 3(5)(A) as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features: (I) essential to the conservation of the species; (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The effects analyses for DCH must consider the role of the critical habitat in both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS. Activities that may result in “take” of federally listed species are regulated by USFWS. USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December 6, 2007 (72 Federal Register [FR] 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under FESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during the environmental review process. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 8 3.1.3 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful to possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter or take any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of CFR Part 10. “Take” is defined as possession or destruction of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend may be a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, bird nests, and eggs. 3.1.4 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT OF 1940 (16 USC 668) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 USC 668, enacted by 54 Stat. 250) protects bald and golden eagles by prohibiting the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds and establishes civil penalties for violation of this Act. Take of bald and golden eagles is defined as follows: “disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior’’ (72 FR 31132; 50 CFR 22.3). USFWS is the primary federal authority charged with the management of golden eagles in the United States. A permit for take of golden eagles, including take from disturbance such as loss of foraging habitat, may be required if this Project affects such resources. On November 10, 2009, the USFWS implemented new rules (74 FR 46835) governing the take of golden and bald eagles. The new rules were released under the existing BGEPA, which has been the primary regulatory protection for unlisted eagle populations since 1940. All activities that may disturb or incidentally take an eagle or its nest as a result of an otherwise legal activity must be permitted by the USFWS under this act. The definition of disturb (72 FR 31132) includes interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior to the degree that it causes or is likely to cause decreased productivity or nest abandonment. If a permit is required, due to the current uncertainty on the status of golden eagle populations in the western United States, it is expected that permits would only be issued for safety emergencies or if conservation measures implemented in accordance with a permit would result in a reduction of ongoing take or a net take of zero. 3.1.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1964, requires that all federal agencies consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), USFWS, and state wildlife agencies (i.e., CDFW) when proposed actions might result in modification of a natural stream or body of water. Federal agencies must consider effects that these projects would have on fish and wildlife development and provide for improvement of these resources. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act allows NMFS, USFWS, and CDFW to provide comments to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during review of IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 9 projects under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (concerning the discharge of dredged materials into navigable waters of the United States [WOTUS]) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regarding obstructions in navigable waterways. NMFS comments provided under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are intended to reduce environmental impacts to migratory, estuarine, and marine fisheries and their habitats. 3.1.6 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 establishes national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zones. In accordance with Section 307(c) of the CZMA, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce of a state’s management program, any applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity in or outside of the coastal zone affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. The federal government certified the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) in 1977. The enforceable policies of that document are Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. For all of the California coast except San Francisco Bay, the state agency responsible for implementing the CZMA is the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal and federally licensed or permitted activities to assess their consistency with the approved CCMP. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated Local Coastal Program (LCP) and CCC jurisdiction. A portion of the project is within the Seal Beach LCP. 3.1.7 CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS The Clean Water Act (CWA), introduced in 1977 via amendatory legislation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is the primary federal law in the United States regulating water pollution. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged material, placement of fill material, or certain types of excavation within WOTUS and authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for such actions. Permits can be issued for individual projects (individual permits) or for general categories of projects (general permits). Terrestrial WOTUS as defined by the CWA have typically included rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters and any associated wetlands. Wetlands are defined by the CWA as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The USACE has adopted several revisions to their regulations to more clearly define WOTUS. The protection of federal jurisdictional WOTUS has been particularly contentious and subject to numerous legal decisions since 2001. 1986 Regulations In 1986, the federal agencies (USACE and United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]) implemented historic regulations (the 1986 Regulations) that defined WOTUS to mean traditional IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 10 navigable waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, interstate waters, and intrastate waters whose use or degradation could affect interstate or foreign commence, as well as tributaries of and wetlands adjacent to any of those waters. 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County Ruling Until the beginning of 2001, WOTUS included, among other things, isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that are not part of a tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable WOTUS. The jurisdictional extent of USACE regulation changed with the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ruling. The United States Supreme Court held that the USACE could not apply Section 404 of the CWA to extend their jurisdiction over an isolated quarry pit. The Court ruled that the CWA does not extend federal regulatory jurisdiction over non‐navigable, isolated, intra‐state waters. However, the Court made it clear that non‐navigable wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are still subject to USACE jurisdiction. 2006 Rapanos Ruling In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). Justice Scalia narrowly interpreted the statutory term “waters of the United States” in a four- Justice plurality opinion, holding that CWA jurisdiction extended over only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” that are connected to TNWs, plus wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such relatively permanent water bodies. Justice Kennedy wrote separately, concurring with the Court’s judgment with respect to the facts of the case, but interpreted “waters of the United States” to include wetlands that possess a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made. The Court’s split decision and lack of a commanding majority opinion in Rapanos created confusion among the federal agencies and public. In 2008, the federal agencies released a regulatory guidance document, the 2008 Rapanos Guidance (USACE and USEPA 2008) addressing common questions about federal jurisdiction over WOTUS and clarifying the two jurisdictional standards from Rapanos. In the 2008 Rapanos Guidance, the federal agencies concluded that federal jurisdiction existed over certain waterbodies that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard from Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard. 2015 Clean Water Act The 1986 Regulations as interpreted by the 2008 Rapanos Guidance were later replaced by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The federal agencies attempted to provide clarification on jurisdiction following the Rapanos ruling by replacing the numerous categories of waterbodies found in the 1986 Regulations with three broader categories: waters that are categorically “jurisdictional by rule” without the need for further analysis; waters that are subject to case-specific jurisdictional analysis; and waters that are categorically excluded from jurisdiction. The 2015 Clean Water Rule emphasized the “significant nexus” standard over the “relatively permanent” standard to include additional types of waters in the new “jurisdictional by rule” category. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, tributaries of these waters, IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 11 and wetlands adjacent to these waters were all deemed “jurisdictional by rule.” The result of the 2015 Clean Water Rule was an expansion in federal jurisdiction over waterbodies that might have otherwise been excluded from the definition of WOTUS on a case-by-case basis under the 1986 Regulations and the Rapanos ruling. Federal jurisdictional WOTUS protected under the CWA were defined in a final 2015 Clean Water Rule; however, the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals issued an order staying the 2015 Rule nationwide, pending a determination by the court on jurisdiction to review the rule. The 2015 Clean Water Rule was stayed, and the prior 1986 Regulations published in 1986, along with some changes in 2008 as a result of the Rapanos ruling, remained in effect. 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule In 2017, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The executive order directed the federal agencies to review the 2015 Clean Water Rule for consistency with the policy outlined in Section 1 of the order and to issue a proposed rule rescinding or revising the 2015 Clean Water Rule as appropriate and consistent with law. The federal agencies repealed the 2015 Rule and restored the previous regulatory regime as it existed prior to finalization of the 2015 Clean Water Rule with, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’—Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules.” On January 23, 2020, the federal agencies issued the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) to redefine WOTUS. The agencies streamlined the definition to include four simple categories of jurisdictional waters: 1. Traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; 2. Tributaries of traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; 3. Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of WOTUS; and 4. Wetlands adjacent to other WOTUS. The NWPR provided clear exclusions for many water features that traditionally have not been regulated, and defined terms in the regulatory text that had never been defined before. Congress, in the CWA, explicitly directed the federal agencies to protect “navigable waters.” The intent of the NWPR was to regulate waters and the core tributary systems that provide perennial or intermittent flow and excluded ephemeral waters. The final NWPR fulfilling Executive Order 13788 became effective on June 22, 2020; however, on August 30, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the NWPR finding ““fundamental, substantive flaws that cannot be cured without revising or replacing the NWPR’s definition.” 2023 Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” On June 9, 2021, the USACE and USEPA under the Biden Administration announced intent to protect more waterways through environmental regulations, beginning a new rulemaking process that restores IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 12 protections put in place before 2015. Following the federal district court decision vacating the NWPR, USEPA and USACE halted implementation of the NWPR and began interpreting WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime, deciding that prompt replacement of the NWPR through the administrative rulemaking process was vital. On January 18, 2023, the federal agencies published the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule in the Federal Register and the rule became effective on March 20, 2023 (USACE and USEPA 2023). The 2023 Rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of WOTUS and exercises their discretion under the statute to return generally to the familiar pre-2015 definition that has bounded the CWA’s protections for decades. The implications of the final 2023 WOTUS rule are such that many ephemeral waters not considered protected under the former 2020 NWPR will now be protected. With the 2023 WOTUS rule, USEPA and USACE interpreted the term WOTUS to include: 1. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters; 2. Impoundments of other jurisdictional WOTUS; 3. Tributaries to either of the above waters, or when the tributaries meet the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard, (collectively, “jurisdictional tributaries”); 4. Wetlands adjacent to traditional waters, wetlands adjacent and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent tributaries and impoundments, and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional tributaries when those wetlands meet the “significant nexus” standard; and 5. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands as defined in 1–4 above that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard. For purposes of characterizing a “jurisdictional adjacent wetland” under the 2023 WOTUS Rule, a wetland may be considered “adjacent” to WOTUS if any of the following three criteria are satisfied: 1. The wetland has an unbroken surface or shallow subsurface connection to WOTUS; 2. The wetland is physically separated from WOTUS by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, and the like; or 3. The wetland is reasonably proximate to WOTUS such that the wetland has significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem of WOTUS. 2023 Sackett Ruling On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett), which established a more stringent test to determine whether the CWA applies to certain categories of wetland. The Sackett family had backfilled a lot near Priest Lake in Idaho, and in agreeing that the Sacketts’ lot is a wetland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit applied the test outlined by Justice Kennedy in Rapanos: whether there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands and waters that are covered by the CWA, and whether the wetlands “significantly affect” the quality of those IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 13 waters. With Sackett, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, where in a majority opinion, lower courts were directed to apply a more stringent test in Rapanos, in which the CWA applies to a particular wetland only if it blends or flows into a neighboring water that is a channel for interstate commerce. While the Court decided that it is clear that some “adjacent” wetlands will also qualify under the CWA as “waters of the United States,” wetlands that are entirely separate from traditional bodies of water will not qualify. The CWA will apply to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States” because they have a “continuous surface connection” with a larger body of water, “making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.” The result of the Sackett ruling is that certain adjacent wetlands formerly protected under the CWA will no longer be federally protected. The USACE and USEPA have acknowledged the Sackett ruling and indicated they will interpret the phrase “waters of the United States” consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. Amendment to the 2023 WOTUS Rule On August 29, 2023, the USEPA and USACE announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of WOTUS to conform with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett. While EPA’s and USACE’s 2023 WOTUS rule defining WOTUS was not directly before the Supreme Court, the decision in Sackett made clear that certain aspects of the WOTUS 2023 rule are invalid. The amendments issued are limited and change only parts of the 2023 rule that are invalid under the Sackett decision. For example, the final rule removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected. Exemptions Under Clean Water Act Section 404 Activities that are exempt under CWA Section 404(f) include 1. Nominal farming, silviculture and ranching activities, 2. (Emergency) maintenance activities, 3. Construction and maintenance of farm ponds, stock ponds, or irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches, 4. Construction of temporary sedimentation basins, 5. Any activity with respect to which a State has an approved program under CWA Section 208(b)(4) which meets the requirements of sections 208(b)(4) (B) and (C) (this pertains to certain applicable statewide waste treatment management programs), and 6. Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment. Exceptions to these exemptions include: IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 14 1. Discharge of toxic pollutants, and 2. If it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of a WOTUS into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow and/or circulation of waters may be impaired or the reach of the waters reduced. Extent of Jurisdiction The extent of CWA Section 404 jurisdiction for non-tidal waters includes non-isolated aquatic features (including wetlands qualifying under the original federal 1986 standards and non-wetland WOTUS) bound by an “ordinary high water mark” as defined by 33 CFR 328.3(e): “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Features considered isolated from TNWs and the exemptions listed above are not considered WOTUS under the jurisdiction of CWA Section 404. 3.2 State Regulations 3.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes state policy to prevent significant and avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by state lead agencies. Regulations for implementation are found in the CEQA Guidelines published by the California Natural Resources Agency. These guidelines establish an overall state of California process for the environmental evaluation of projects. 3.2.2 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Provisions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., take is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). Additionally, the FGC contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (FGC Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], and 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or possessed. In addition to federal and State-listed species, the CDFW also has produced a list of Species of Special Concern (SSC) to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 15 their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. SSC may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection. Birds of prey are protected in California under the FGC. FGC Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to ‘take’, possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to ‘take’, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the FGC, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-of-prey, taking, or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to FGC Section 3800 are prohibited. 3.2.3 SECTION 1602 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE Section 1602 of the FGC requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility which proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or use materials from a streambed, or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake, to first notify the CDFW of the proposed project. Notification is generally required for any project that would take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Based on the notification materials submitted, the CDFW would determine whether the proposed project may impact fish or wildlife resources. If the CDFW determines that a proposed project may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) would be required. A completed CEQA document must be submitted to CDFW before an LSAA would be issued. 3.2.4 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the “discharge of waste” to “waters of the State”. All projects proposing to discharge waste that could affect waters of the State must file a Waste Discharge Report with the appropriate RWQCB. The board responds to the report by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements or by waiving them for that project discharge. Both terms “discharge of waste” and waters of the State are broadly defined such that discharges of waste include fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other “discharge.” Isolated wetlands within California, which are no longer considered waters of the State, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, are addressed under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 16 3.2.5 STATE-REGULATED HABITATS The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency (together with the RWQCBs) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. The CDFW extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS-defined), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFW 1994). Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; that substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or that use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed may require that the project applicant enter into an LSAA with the CDFW. 3.2.6 NATIVE PLANT PROTECTION ACT Under FGC Sections 1900 to 1913, the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. a Project applicant is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of the NPPA and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants. 3.2.7 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RARE PLANT PROGRAM The mission of the CNPS Rare Plant Program is to develop current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of California’s rare and endangered plants and to use this information to promote science-based plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (e.g., listing status, habitat, distribution, threats, etc.) is entered into the online CNPS Rare Plant Inventory and given a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The Rare Plant Program currently recognizes more than 1,600 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered in California. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have a designated status under state endangered species legislation, are defined by the following CRPRs: • CRPR 1A: Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California • CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • CRPR 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere • CRPR 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 17 • CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list In addition to the CRPR designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added onto the CRPR and designates the level of endangerment by a 0.1 to 0.3 ranking, with 0.1 being the most endangered and 0.3 being the least endangered and are described as follows: • 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) • 0.2: Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) • 0.3: Not very threatened in California (low degree or immediacy of threats or no current threats known) 3.2.8 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND COASTAL ACT OF 1976 The CCC has planning, regulatory, and permitting responsibilities in partnership with local governments over all development taking place within the coastal zone, a 1.5 million-acre area stretching 1,100 miles along the state’s coastline from Oregon to Mexico (and around nine offshore islands). The coastal zone extends seaward 3 miles, while its landward boundary varies from several miles inland in places such as the Eel River and the Elkhorn Slough, to as close as a few hundred feet from the shore in other areas. The CCC’s enabling legislation, the Coastal Act of 1976, created a comprehensive coastal protection program grounded in partnerships between CCC and local government jurisdictions (15 counties and 60 cities) within the coastal zone. Among the coastal resources specifically protected within the Coastal Act are public access to the coastline, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agriculture, low-cost visitor-serving recreational uses, visual resources, commercial and recreational fishing, and community character. Coastal streams and wetlands are also protected under the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as: …lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The CCC’s regulations (CCR Title 14) establishes a “one parameter definition,” which requires evidence of a single parameter to establish wetland conditions: Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. (14 CCR Section 13577). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 18 The “one parameter” definition adopted by the Coastal Commission is based on the general definition used by USFWS and CDFW from the USFWS wetlands classification system first published in 1979 (Cowardin et al. 1979): Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The Coastal Act definition of a wetland does not distinguish between wetlands based on their quality. Therefore, under the Coastal Act, poorly functioning or degraded areas that meet the definition of wetlands are subject to wetland protection policies. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated LCP and CCC jurisdiction. The Project is within the Seal Beach LCP. 3.3 Local Regulations 3.3.1 ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN – CHAPTER VI. RESOURCE ELEMENT Natural Resource Component The Natural Resources Component of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan contains policies and programs which are designed to protect and conserve natural resources in the County, including scenic areas such as ridgelines and hillsides, climate, farmlands, native vegetation and wildlife, and mineral resources. It provides a basis for programs which served to implement natural resource conservation goals and policies and establish a framework for additional inventory and resource planning efforts (County of Orange 2005). The Goals, Objectives, and Policies relative to natural resources that apply to the Project are as follows: Goal 1 Protect wildlife and vegetation resources and promote development that preserves these resources. • Objective 1.1 To prevent the elimination of significant wildlife and vegetation through resource inventory and management strategies. • Policy 1. To identify and preserve the significant wildlife and vegetation habitats of the County. Goal 3 Manage and utilize wisely the County’s landform resources. • Objective 3.1. To minimize to the extent feasible the disruption of significant natural landforms in Orange County. • Policy 5. To protect the unique variety of significant landforms in Orange County through environmental review procedures and community and corridor planning activities. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 19 Open Space Component The Open Space Component of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan is the open space plan for the unincorporated areas of Orange County. This component is the successor to the Open Space Element originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 27, 1973. The preparation of this component is in compliance with State Government Code Sections 65560-65568, which require each city and county to prepare and adopt an open space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation of open space land within its jurisdiction (County of Orange 2005). The Open Space Component contains the necessary goals, objectives, policies, and programs to promote the preservation and protection of resource areas and the protection of the public from potential hazards. The component also functions in a manner to shape the overall urban form of Orange County. To that end, open space facilities such as greenbelts that buffer conflicting land uses or link recreation facilities along regional trails and water courses are desired, as well as areas set aside to preserve cultural-historic resources, significant wildlife habitats, and biotic resources such as oak groves, sycamore/riparian woodlands, and marshlands (County of Orange 2005). An integral part of the Open Space Component is the Open Space/Conservation Program Map which depicts an open space framework of countywide significance. This framework includes areas of resource concentration such as existing and proposed regional recreation facilities and a system of linkages such as trails and major open space corridors. The implementation programs provide the mechanism by which an integrated open space network can be realized (County of Orange 2005). The Goals, Objectives, and Policies relative to open space that apply to the Project are as follows: Goal 1. Retain the character and natural beauty of the environment through the preservation, conservation, and maintenance of open space. • Objective 1.1. To designate open space areas that preserve, conserve, maintain, and enhance the significant natural resources and physical features of unincorporated Orange County. • Policy 1.1. To guide and regulate development of the unincorporated areas of the County to ensure that the character and natural beauty of Orange County is retained. • Policy 1.2. To implement the Open Space Component through a program organization capable of conducting multiple projects at priority locations throughout the County and with sufficient resources, authority, and responsibility to effectively manage the program. • Policy 1.3. To seek out, evaluate, and take advantage of special opportunities to obtain open space as these opportunities become available and when the available open space meets or helps to meet established open space goals and objectives. Goal 4. Conserve open space lands needed for recreation, education, and scientific activities, as well as cultural-historic preservation. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 20 • Objective 4.1. To encourage the conservation of open space lands which provide recreational scenic, scientific, and educational opportunities. • Policy 4.1. To plan for the acquisition, development, maintenance, operation, and financing of open space lands which provide recreational, scenic, aesthetic, scientific, and educational opportunities. 3.3.2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN – OPEN SPACE / RECREATION / CONSERVATION ELEMENT The City was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community but has grown into a small city within an urbanized region encompassing 11.5 square miles along the Pacific Coast. The City’s General Plan provides a comprehensive long-term plan for its character and physical development through appropriate goals, policies, and programs. Planning was formerly focused on expansion, but as much of Seal Beach is now developed, the focus for the future has evolved towards managing and enhancing development. The relevant component of the General Plan is the Niguel Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element, which addresses the importance of the provision of recreation areas, preservation of natural resources, avoidance of development in hazardous areas; and the establishment of buffers between incompatible land uses (City of Seal Beach 2003). The purpose of the City’s Open Space / Recreation / Conservation Element is: • To define open space and classify various types of open space uses. • Describe those parcels or areas that are currently being used for open space/recreation and conservation purposes and discuss in concept future open space needs of the community. • Determine methods to ensure that the present and future needs of the community are met. Open space is defined as land set aside for outdoor recreation; the preservation of natural resources; managed production of resources; or the safety and general welfare of the community. Recreation land is categorized as land developed for the use and enjoyment of the community, either as active land or passive land. Conservation land is land for the conservation, enhancement, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force; water quality; flood control; beach erosion; harbors; wildlife refuge; rivers; soils; forests; minerals; and other natural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003). 3.3.3 SEAL BEACH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 920-acres of salt marsh and upland habitat located within the boundaries of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. This wildlife refuge is one of the last remaining natural, undeveloped areas of coastal Southern California. In 1969, the wetlands were designated by the Navy Preserve and on August 30, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed Public Law 92-408, formally establishing the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. This National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the Department of the Navy and the Fish and Wildlife Service. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 3 Regulatory Environment Project Number: 2042665000 21 3.3.4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) along with the California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service worked together to create the Orange County Transportation Authority/California Department of Transportation Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) / Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in October 2009 with an amendment in 2016 (OCTA 2009). The planning area includes all of Orange County and this plan is meant to work with the existing Orange County planning efforts of the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP and the Southern Orange County HCP. The plan goals include: • Provide for the management and conservation of specific covered species within the planning area; • Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support the specific covered species within the planning area; • Implement the covered activities in such a way that complies with state and federal fish and wildlife protection laws, including CESA and the FESA; • Provide a basis for permits necessary to lawfully take specific covered species; • Provide a way to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation requirements of FESA, NCCP, CEQA, and NEPA regarding the impacts of covered activities on the covered species within the planning area; • Provide an accounting process that will document the net environmental benefits from the NCCP/HCP in exchange for streamlined and timely approval of permits for the Renewed Measure M freeway program; • Provide a less costly, more efficient project review process that results in greater conservation values than project-by-project, species-by-species review; and • Provide clear expectations and regulatory predictability for the entities carrying out covered activities within the planning area. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 22 4 Existing Conditions 4.1 Setting The Project is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, California, and is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program which have a total land area of approximately 104.45-acres. Appendix A, Figure 1 shows the Project Location Overview. Average summer high temperatures are approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF), average winter low temperatures are approximately 55ºF, and annual precipitation averages 12.26 inches (U.S. Climate Data 2024). Portions of the Project area are also located within the Coastal Zone and regulated by the California Coastal Commission. Due to its location along the shore of the Pacific Ocean, development, and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are also subject to review by the CCC for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City of Seal Beach is in the process of developing a LCP which will implement the Coastal Act at the local level. The western edge of the City of Seal Beach and directly adjacent to portions of the Project area include shoreline, beaches, and marinas which support areas of biological diversity. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh located at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The Seal Beach NWR includes habitats that are essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, which includes federal- and state-listed species. The Seal Beach NWR is under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for perpetuation of two endangered species, the light- footed Ridgeway’s rail, and the California least tern, and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds (USFWS 2024c). Other species of concern found in the Seal Beach NWR include the Eastern Pacific green sea turtle, Belding’s savannah sparrow, and other year- round species including ospreys, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, brown pelicans, crabs, and snails. There are several winter migration species as well, including Canada, snow, and Ross’ geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, American avocet, black-bellies plover, and least and western sandpipers. Additionally, many California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, may also be small rays and sharks within the protected waters of the Seal Beach NWR (USFWS 2024c). 4.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Vegetation communities and other land cover types within the Project area were determined based on review of aerial imagery and are presented below. No vegetation communities classified in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) are present within the Project area. All areas are categorized as land cover types. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 23 4.2.1 LAND COVER TYPES Ruderal Herbaceous Ruderal herbaceous vegetation is generally comprised of non-native or naturalized species that populate previously disturbed areas. Common ruderal species include bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), giant reed (Arundo donax), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Maltese star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis), black mustard (Brassica nigrea), and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Disturbed/Developed This land cover type includes City parks, recreational vehicle storage, a golf course, commercial buildings, paved or graded roadways, concrete pads, landscaped areas. The vegetated areas within this land cover type primarily contain ornamental planters, such as within residential yards and landscaped areas. These areas are generally periodically maintained for weed control, precluding any significant growth of non-ornamental species, but may be sparsely interspersed with ruderal pioneer plant species that readily colonize open disturbed soil. These include bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), castor bean (Ricinus communis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and non-native grasses. This land cover type is present on all the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. 4.3 Topography and Hydrology Topography in the Project area is relatively flat associated with the coastal plain, with elevation ranging from approximately 0 to 40 feet above mean sea level. The Project area occurs east of the San Gabriel River and north of the Pacific Ocean. According to the National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2022), the Project area is within three subwatersheds: Coyote Creek-San Gabriel River subwatershed (HU12 180701060606; Housing Opportunity Sites 2 - 6), Huntington Beach – Pacific Ocean (HU12 18070201002; Housing Opportunity Site 8 and Main Street Program), and Anaheim Bay (HU12 180702010001; Sites 1 and 7). The higher-level hydrologic units the subwatershed is nested in are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2. Hydrologic Units Above the Coyote Creek – San Gabriel River Subwatershed Unit Level Hydrologic Unit Code Name Region (HU 2) 18 California Subregion (HU 4) 1807 Southern California Coastal Basin (HU 6) 180701 Ventura-San Gabriel Coastal Basin Subbasin (HU 8) 18070106 San Gabriel Watershed (HU 10) 1807010606 Lower San Gabriel River IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 24 Table 3. Hydrologic Units Above the Huntington Beach - Pacific Ocean and Anaheim Bay Subwatersheds Unit Level Hydrologic Unit Code Name Region (HU 2) 18 California Subregion (HU 4) 1807 Southern California Coastal Basin (HU 6) 180702 Santa Ana Subbasin (HU 8) 18070201 Seal Beach Watershed (HU 10) 1807020100 Bolsa Chica Channel – Frontal Huntington Harbor 4.4 Soils Historic soils data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was used to determine potential soil types that may occur within the Project area (Appendix A, Figures 2). Table 4 identifies the soils historically known to occur within the Project area and provides a summary of characteristics of these soils (NRCS 2024). There are no hydric soils mapped within the Project area. Table 4. Historic Soil Units Occurring within the Project area Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Description Project Area Area within Project Area(acres) 123 Bolsa silt loam, drained A somewhat poorly drained non-hydric soil associated with alluvial fans at elevations between 0 to 680 feet; silt loam (0 to 29 inches), silty clay loam (29 to 69 inches); parent material is made up of mixed alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. Minor components include Hueneme, Chino, Metz, Bolsa, Omni, and San Emigdio. Housing Opportunity Site 4 Shops at Rossmoor 23.50 Housing Opportunity Site 5 Old Ranch Town Center 26.06 Housing Opportunity Site 2 Leisure World 5.56 Total 55.12 125 Bolsa silty clay loam, drained A somewhat poorly drained non-hydric soil associated with alluvial fans at elevations between -10 to 610 feet; silty clay loam (0 to 12 inches), silt loam (12 to 29 inches), silty clay loam (29 to 69 inches); parent material consists of mixed alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. Minor components include Chino, Hueneme, and Omni. Housing Opportunity Site 4 Shops at Rossmoor 3.30 Housing Opportunity Site 6 8.14 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 25 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Description Project Area Area within Project Area(acres) Seal Beach Plaza Total 11.44 100 Alo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes A well-drained non-hydric soil associated with hillslopes at elevations between 0 to 1,460 feet; clay (0 to 25 inches), bedrock (25 to 59 inches); parent material consists of calcareous residuum weathered from sandstone and shale. Minor components include Balcom, Anaheim, and Bosanko. Housing Opportunity Site 3 Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) 4.49 Total 4.49 173 Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes A moderately well-drained non-hydric soil associated with terraces at elevations between 0 to 1,560 feet; sandy loam (0 to 12 inches), sandy clay (12 to 18 inches); sandy clay loam (18 to 71 inches), sandy loam (71 to 79 inches); parent material consists of alluvium derived from sandstone. Minor components include Myford, Capistrano, Yorba, Chesterton, and Water. Housing Opportunity Site 7 Seal Beach Center 1.65 Total 1.65 162 Marina loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes A somewhat excessively drained non- hydric soil associated with dunes at elevations between 0 to 1,330 feet; loamy sand (0 to 33 inches), sand (33 to 80 inches); parent material consists of old eolian sands. Minor components include Marina, Myford, and an unnamed soil. Housing Opportunity Site 8 99 Marina Drive 4.31 Main Street Program 21 Housing Opportunity Site 7 Seal Beach Center 6.27 Housing Opportunity Site 1 1780 Pacific Coast 0.23 Total 20.01 Overall Total 104.45 IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 26 4.5 Aquatic Resources 4.5.1 COASTAL ZONE There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California, including the coastal zone: the USACE Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; the CDFW regulates activities under the FGC Sections 1600-1607; and the RWQCB regulates activities under Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8, and Main Street Program, fall within the Coastal Zone (Appendix A, Figure 5-1). Development within these areas will require coordination with CCC and a Coastal Development Permit for the Project, which would require that the Project adhere to the policies of the California Coastal Act. 4.5.2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped a variety of wetland and water resources within and adjacent to the Project area (see Appendix A, Figure 3). These features include Estuarine and Marine Deepwater, Estuarine and Marine Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, and Riverine (USFWS 2024b). The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area. The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing Opportunity Site 2 (Leisure World). The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as part of this assessment. The Los Alamitos Channel is a known WOTUS because it is a tributary to the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River is also a known WOTUS. Additionally, these areas would qualify as Waters of the State and CDFW jurisdictional waters. 4.6 Common Wildlife This section describes the common wildlife species expected to occur within the Project area based on habitat characteristics and species known to occur in the region. 4.6.1 TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES As in all ecological systems, invertebrates inhabiting the Project area play a crucial role in several biological processes. They serve as the primary or secondary food sources for a variety of bird, reptile, and mammal predators; they provide important pollination vectors for numerous plant species; they act as components in controlling pest populations; and they support the naturally occurring maintenance of an area by consuming detritus and contributing to necessary soil nutrients. Though heavily urbanized, habitat conditions within the Project area provide a suite of microhabitat conditions for a wide variety of IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 27 terrestrial insects and other invertebrates that are known to adapt to such disturbance. A focused insect survey was not performed within the Project area for this Project; however, a variety of common insects are expected to be present within the Project area. 4.6.2 FISH There is no flowing water identified within the Project area; therefore, there is no potential for fish in the Project area. However, there may be fish in the surrounding areas. 4.6.3 AMPHIBIANS Amphibians often require a source of standing or flowing water to complete their life cycle. However, some terrestrial amphibian species can survive in drier areas by remaining in moist environments found beneath leaf litter, animal burrows, and fallen logs, or by burrowing into the soil. These species are highly cryptic and often difficult to detect. Downed logs, bark, and other woody material in various stages of decay (often referred to as coarse woody debris), which is generally not present within the Project area, could provide shelter and feeding sites for a variety of wildlife, including amphibians and reptiles (Aubry et al. 1988; Maser and Trappe 1984). Species known to occur in the area include the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus), Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypocondriaca), and garden slender salamander (Batrachoseps major major). 4.6.4 REPTILES The number and type of reptile species that may occur at a given site is related to several biotic and abiotic features. These include the diversity of plant communities, substrates, soil types, and presence of refugia such as rock piles, boulders, and native debris. Many reptile species, even if present, are difficult to detect because they are cryptic and their life history characteristics (e.g., foraging, thermoregulatory behavior, fossorial nature, camouflage) limit their ability to be observed during most surveys. Further, many species are only active within relatively narrow thermal limits, avoiding both cold and hot conditions, and most species take refuge in microhabitats that are not directly visible to the casual observer, such as rodent burrows, in crevices, under rocks and boards, and in dense vegetation, where they are protected from unsuitable environmental conditions and predators (USACE and CDFG 2010). In some cases, they are only observed when flushed from their refugia. Weather conditions during the survey were favorable for reptile activity. Common reptiles known to occur in the area include the red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and California king snake (Lampropeltis californiae). Although the Project area does not contain suitable habitat for these species, there is potential for them to be present in areas adjacent to the Project. A small population of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are known to be present near the mouth of San Gabriel River and in the lower reaches; however, this species requires shallow coastal waters and open ocean, which is not present within the Project area (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2024). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 4 Existing Conditions Project Number: 2042665000 28 4.6.5 BIRDS It is possible that many birds use the Project area at different periods, either as wintering habitat, seasonal breeding, or as occasional migrants. Suitable habitat conditions for several common birds known to occur in the region. Species that may be expected to occur include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn owl (Tyto alba), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), California gull (Larus californicus), western gull (Larus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and black-crowned heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). 4.6.6 MAMMALS Generally, the distribution of mammals on a given site is associated with the presence of factors such as access to perennial water, topographical and structural components (e.g., rock piles, vegetation) that provide cover and support prey base, and the presence of suitable soils for fossorial mammals (e.g., sandy areas). Common mammals habituated to urban environments may move through the Project area, including striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), domestic species such as cats (Felis catus), and various rodent species. Bats likely forage and roost in the region, particularly along riparian corridors. Many bats tend to concentrate foraging activities in riparian habitats similar to those occurring adjacent to the Project area where insect abundance is high. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 29 5 Special-Status Biological Resources The background information presented above was used to evaluate special-status natural communities and special-status plant and animal taxa that either occur or may have the potential to occur within the Project area and adjacent habitats. For the purposes of this BRTR, special-status taxa are defined as plants or animals that: • Have been designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW or the USFWS, and are protected under either the CESA or FESA; • Are candidate species being considered or proposed for listing under these same acts; • Are recognized as SSC by the CDFW; • Are ranked by CNPS as CRPR 1, 2, 3, or 4 plant species; • Are fully protected by the FGC, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, or 5515; and/or • Are of expressed concern to resource/regulatory agencies, or local jurisdictions. 5.1 Special-Status Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities are defined by CDFW (2018) as, “...communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” All vegetation is ranked with an “S” State rarity rank; however, only those that are of special concern (S1-S3 rank) are evaluated under CEQA. The CNDDB records search indicated that there are four sensitive vegetation communities within a 10- mile radius of the Project area: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. The Southern Dune Scrub has a state rank of S1/Critically imperiled, at very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Southern Foredunes has a state rank of S2/Imperiled, at high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest has a state rank of S3/Vulnerable, at moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. The Project area does not contain any of these sensitive natural communities. The Project occurs within the Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP, but this is not relevant for this project. 5.2 Designated Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat is defined by the USFWS (2020) as, “. . .a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It includes specific geographic areas that contain features (known as Primary IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 30 Constituent Elements) essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. DCH may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the listed species but are thought to be needed for its recovery.” There is no DCH within the Project area. The nearest DCH is for the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus), located approximately 3.3 miles southeast; and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the Project area (USFWS 2024a, USFW 2024c). 5.3 Special-Status Plants Special-status plant species include those listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA or CESA, taxa proposed for such listing, SSC, CRPR, and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the special-status plant taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix A, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, CNPS, USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria: • High (H): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. • Moderate (M): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area, or the immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area; the Project area is located within the known current distribution of the taxa and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. • Low (L): A historical record (over 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or general vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area. • Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 31 Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species and Their Habitat Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description red sand- verbena Abronia maritima -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dune habitats. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is February – October. chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal and desert dune habitats. Elevation range: 246 – 5,249 feet. Typical blooming period is January – September. aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb adapted to saline soils, found in sand or scrub along the immediate coast. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is in March – June. Horn’s milk- vetch Astragalus hornii var. hornii -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in lake margins, salty flats, meadows, seeps, and playas. Adapted to alkaline soils. Elevation range: 197 –. 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – September. Ventura marsh milk-vetch Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, marshes, and swamps (edges, coastal salt, or brackish); within reach of high tide or protected by barrier beaches; rarely occurs near seeps on sandy bluffs. Elevation range: 3 – 115 feet. Typical blooming period is August - October. Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, ocean bluffs, ridgetops, as well as alkaline low places. Occurs in alkaline, dry, or clay soils. Elevation range: 7– 1,509 feet. Typical blooming period is March to October. south coast saltscale Atriplex pacifica -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and playa habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March to October. Parish’s brittlescale Atriplex parishii -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in dry lake beds, playas, ephemeral vernal pools, and chenopod scrub habitats. Present in saline and alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 1,542 feet. Typical blooming period is June – October. Davidson’s saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, bluffs, chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pools from southern California to Baja California. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 656 feet. Typical blooming period is April – October. Catalina mariposa lily Calochortus catalinae -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland habitats. Elevation range: below 2,297 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 32 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Plummer’s mariposa lily Calochortus plummerae -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane forest, and valley and foothill grasslands. Occurs in granitic and rocky substrates. Elevation range: 328– 5,577 feet. Typical blooming period is May – July. intermediate mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius -- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands; typically in rocky, calcareous substrates. Elevation range: 345 – 2,805 feet. Typical blooming period is May – June. lucky morning- glory Calystegia felix -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb historically associated with wetland and marshy places, but possibly in drier situations as well. May occur in silty loam and alkaline soils in meadows and seeps, and riparian scrub habitats. Elevation range: 98 – 705 feet. Typical blooming period is March – September. Lewis’ evening- primrose Camissoniopsis lewisii -- / -- / 3 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal and dune habitats. Associated with coastal strand, coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis -- / -- / 1B.1 / Listed Annual herb the occurs on the margins of marshes and swamps, vernally mesic portions of valley and foothill grasslands, depressions, waterway banks and beds, open poorly drained flats, and disturbed area. Occurs in alkaline substrates. Elevation range: 0 – 1,575 feet. Typical blooming period is May – November. smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chenopod scrub; meadows and seeps; playas; riparian woodlands; valley and foothill grasslands; depressions; waterway banks and beds; open, poorly drained flats; and disturbed areas. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 295 – 1,640 feet. Typical blooming period is April – September. salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum FE / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal dune, marsh, and swamp habitats. Elevation range: 0-98 feet. Typical blooming period is May – October. seaside cistanthe Cistanthe maritima -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: 0 – 984 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. small-flowered morning-glory Convolvulus simulans -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in seeps. This species has a strong affinity for ultramafic substrates. Elevation range: 98 – 2,870 feet. Typical blooming period is March – July. many- stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis -- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Often occurs in clay soils. Elevation range: 49 – 2,592 feet. Typical blooming period is April-July. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 33 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description small spikerush Eleocharis parvula -- / -- / 4.3 / -- Perennial grass-like herb that occurs in salt marsh and coastal habitats. Elevation range: below 164 feet. Typical blooming period is July – August. San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual or perennial herb that occurs in vernal pools. Elevation range: below 2,313 feet. Typical blooming period is April – June. Los Angeles sunflower Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii -- / -- / 1A / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that historically occurred in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties; however, it is presumed to be extinct. It occurred in salt or freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation range: 33 – 5,003 feet. Typical blooming period is August – October. vernal barley Hordeum intercedens -- / -- / 3.2 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in coastal dune, coastal scrub, saline flats and depressions in valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats. Elevation range: 16 – 3,280 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. decumbent goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats, and disturbed areas. Occurs in sandy soils. Elevation range: 3 – 3,002 feet. Typical blooming period is April – November. Southern California black walnut Juglans californica -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Elevation range: 164 – 2,953 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial grass-like herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in seeps, meadows, salt marshes, and dune coastal habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – June. Coulter’s goldenfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal salt marshes and swamps, playas, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Usually found in clay and alkaline soils. Elevation range: 3 – 4,511 feet. Typical blooming period is February – June. California box- thorn Lycium californicum -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub found in coastal sage scrub communities. Elevation range: below 492 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. mud nama Nama stenocarpa -- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, lake shores, riverbanks, and other intermittently wet areas. Elevation range: 16 – 1. Typical blooming period is January – July. Gambel’s water cress Nasturtium gambelii FE / ST / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps. Elevation range: 16 – 1,083 feet. Typical blooming period is April – October. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 34 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and meadow and seep habitats. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 10 – 4,052 feet. Typical blooming period is April – June. coast woolly- heads Nemacaulis denudate var. denudate -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs on coastal dunes and beaches. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is March – August. California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in large and deep vernal pools, typically with clay soils and an impervious subsurface layer. Elevation range: 49 – 2,165 feet. Typical blooming period is April -August. Lyon’s pentachaeta Pentachaeta lyonia -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral openings, and valley and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation range: 98 – 2,264 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. south coast branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis -- / -- / 3.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in wetland below 12,467 feet in elevation. Typical blooming period is March – August. Brand’s star phacelia Phacelia stellaris -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs on bluffs and slopes in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and coastal bluff scrub habitats. Occurs in sandy or clay soils. Elevation range: 3 - 1,312 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in riparian habitats in foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: below 4,265 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. Sanford’s arrowhead Sagittaria sanfordii -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater marsh habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is May – October. salt spring checkerbloom Sidalcea neomexicana -- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in playa, chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and Mojavean desert scrub habitats. Also occurs in alkali springs and marshes. Elevation range: 49 – 5,020 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June. estuary seablite Suaeda esteroa -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, including coastal salt marshes. Occurs in clay, silt, and sand substrates. Elevation range: 0 – 262 feet. Typical blooming period is July – October. woolly seablite Suaeda taxifolia -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in salt marsh habitats on the edges of coastal sage scrub and wetland riparian communities. Elevation range: below 49 feet. Typical blooming period is January – December. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 35 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal/ State/CRPR/OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in meadow and seep, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, marsh and swamp, and valley foothill grassland habitats. Generally found in vernally mesic grassland habitats near ditches, streams, and springs. May also occur in disturbed areas. Elevation range: 10 – 6,709 feet. Typical blooming period is July – November. General References: USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on Project area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile centered on Project area (accessed January 2024). CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 8-quad search (accessed January 2024) Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (accessed 2024) Status Codes: No Status (--) Federal Federal Endangered (FE) Federal Threatened (FT) Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE) Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT) Federal Candidate (FC) State State Endangered (SE) State Threatened (ST) State Candidate (SC) State Rare (SR) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere (Rank 1B); Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere (Rank 2); Plants that about which more information is needed (Rank 3); A watch list plant of limited distribution (Rank 4) Threat Code: Seriously endangered in California (≥80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) (.1); Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) (.2); Not very endangered I California (≤20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) (.3). Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP Listed ..... IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 36 Table 6. Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program red-sand verbena N N N N N N N N N chaparral sand-verbena N N N N N N N N N aphanisma N N N N N N N N N Horn’s milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N Ventura marsh milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N Coulter’s saltbush N N N N N N N L N south coast saltscale N N N N N N N N N Parish’s brittlescale N N N N N N N N N Davidson’s saltscale N N N N N N N N N Catalina marisposa lily N N N N N N N N N Plummer’s mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N intermediate mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N lucky morning-glory N N N N N N N N N Lewis’ evening-primrose N N N N N N N N N southern tarplant N N N N N N N L N smooth tarplant N N N N N N N N N salt-march birds’s beak N N N N N N N N N seaside cistanthe N N N N N N N N N small-flowered morning-glory N N N N N N N N N many-stemmed dudleya N N N N N N N N N small spikerush N N N N N N N N N San Diego button-celery N N N N N N N N N Los Angeles sunflower N N N N N N N N N vernal barley N N N N N N N N N IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 37 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program decumbent goldenbush N N N N N N N N N Southern California black walnut N N N N N N N N N southwestern spiny rush N N N N N N N N N Coulter’s goldenfields N N N N N N N L N California box-thorn N N N N N N N N N mud nama N N N N N N N N N Gambel’s water cress N N N N N N N N N prostrate vernal pool navarretia N N N N N N N N N coasty woolly-heads N N N N N N N N N California Orcutt grass N N N N N N N N N Lyon’s pentachaeta N N N N N N N N N south coast branching phacelia N N N N N N N N N Brand’s star phacelia N N N N N N N N N Engelmann oak N N N N N N N N N Sanford’s arrowhead N N N N N N N N N salt spring checkerbloom N N N N N N N N N estuary seablite N N N N N N N N N woolly seablite N N N N N N N N N San Bernardino aster N N N N N N N N N IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 38 5.4 Special-Status Wildlife Special-status wildlife include those listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA or CESA, taxa proposed for such listing, SSC, and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area. Tables 7 and 8 summarize the special-status wildlife taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix A, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria: • High (H): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known occurrence occurs within the Project area or adjacent areas (within 5 miles of the Project area) within the past 20 years; however, these taxa were not detected during the most recent surveys. • Moderate (M): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known regional record occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the Project area or within the past 20 years; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the Project area and within the past 20 years and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite; or the taxa’s range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists. • Low (L): Limited habitat for the taxa occurs within the Project area and no known occurrences were found within the database search and the taxa’s range includes the geographic area. • Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 39 Table 7. Special-Status Animal Species and Their Habitat Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Invertebrates Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii -- / SC / S2 / -- Coastal California east to the Sierra- Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE / S1 / -- / -- Restricted to vernal pools in coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. monarch – California overwintering population Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 FC / S2 / -- / -- Inhabitant of coastal sand dune habitat; erratically distributed from Ten Mile creek in Mendocino County south to Ensenada, Mexico. Inhabits foredunes and sand hummocks; it burrows beneath the sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation. Roosts located in wind- protected tree groves (eucalyptus, pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Larvae require the host plant, (Asclepias ssp.) for development. quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas Editha quino FE / S1S2 / -- / -- Native to southern California and northwestern Mexico. Occurs in localized colonies closely associated with the high densities of larval food plant, Plantago erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurescens. Adults use several chaparral annual flowers for food. Six known populations in southwestern Riverside and San Diego counties and at least one population near Tecate, Mexico. Associated with sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage shrublands hills and mesas near the coast. Palos Verdes blue butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis FE / S1 / -- / -- Dependent on two known larval host plants, Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus)—also known as locoweed—and common deerweed (Acmispon glaber) within coastal scrub habitat. Known only from Palos Verdes peninsula. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 40 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE / S2 / -- / -- Restricted to vernal pools and other non-vegetated ephemeral pools in inland areas of Riverside County, Orange County, and the vicinity of Ramona, San Diego County; and coastal areas of San Diego County and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Reptiles southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi -- / S3 / SSC / -- Generally, south of the transverse range, extending to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi and Piute mountains in Kern County. Variety of habitats; generally, in moist, loose soil. They prefer soils with a high moisture content. orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra -- / S2S3 / WL / Listed Found in sage scrub and chaparral habitats. green turtle Chelonia mydas FT / S1 / -- / -- Usually occur in relatively shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. Occur in lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. western pond turtle Emys marmorata FPT / SNR / SSC / Listed A thoroughly aquatic turtle of small ponds and lakes, marshes, permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds, reservoirs, treatment lagoons, irrigation ditches, and slow-moving permanent or intermittent rivers, streams, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Abundant cover necessary including logs, rocks, and submerged vegetation. coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii -- / S4 / SSC / Listed Primarily in sandy soil in open areas, especially sandy washes and floodplains, in many plant communities. Requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and an abundant supply of ants or other insects. Main prey item is harvester ants. Occurs west of the deserts from northern Baja California, Mexico, north to Shasta County below 2,400 meters elevation. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 41 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Amphibians western spadefoot Spea hammondii FPT / S3S4 / SSC /-- Occurs in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills and the non-desert areas of southern California and Baja California, Mexico. Grassland habitats, valley-foothill hardwood woodlands, and coastal sage scrub. Vernal pools and other temporary rain pools, cattle tanks, and occasionally pools of intermittent streams are essential for breeding and egg-laying. Burrows in loose soils during dry season. Fish Arroyo chub Gila orcuttii -- / S2 / SSC / Listed Found in habitats characterized by slow-moving water, mud or sand substrate, and depths greater than 40 cm. Most abundant in low gradient pools that support at least some aquatic vegetation. steelhead – southern California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 FT / S2 / SSC / -- Inhabits seasonally accessible rivers and streams with gravel for spawning. Requires sufficient flows in their natal streams to be able to return from oceans and lakes to spawn. Federal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria River south to southern extent of range (San Mateo Creek in San Diego County). Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerance to warmer water and more variable conditions. short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus FE / S1 / SSC / -- Located on remote islands of the western Pacific. Mammals western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus -- / S3S4 / SSC / -- Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, bridges, trees, and tunnels. In California, most records are from rocky areas at low elevations. bobcat Lynx rufus -- / -- / -- / Listed Common throughout the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico. Preferred habitats include dense chaparral, low and mid elevation conifer, oak, pinyon- juniper woodlands, riparian, and desert environments. south coast marsh vole Microtus californicus -- / S2 / SSC / -- Occurs in areas of tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and southern Ventura counties. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 42 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis -- / S3 / SSC / -- Occurs in low-lying arid areas in southern California. Prefers rugged, rocky terrain. Often forages over water sources. Roosts in buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees. Also roosts in crevices in high cliffs or rock outcrops. western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus -- / S3 / SSC / -- Primarily roost in trees hanging from the underside of leaves. Commonly found in riparian woodland habitat with dead fronds of non-native palms (for roosting). Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus FE / S2 / SSC / -- An obligate resident of fine-grained sandy soils of coastal strand, coastal dunes, river and marine alluvium, and coastal sage scrub near the ocean and has never been collected more than 2 miles from the coast. Occurrences are closely associated with loose or friable soils that permit burrowing. southern California saltmarsh shrew Sorex ornatus salicornicus -- / S1 / SSC /-- Coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties. Requires dense vegetation and woody debris for cover. Birds tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor -- / ST / SSC / -- Highly colonial species, most numerous in the Central Valley and vicinity, and largely endemic to California. Breeds near freshwater, preferably in emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs. Forages in grassland and cropland habitats with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony. They are itinerant breeders, nesting more than once at different locations during the breeding season. burrowing owl Athene cunicularia -- / S2 / SSC / -- Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel. ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis -- / S3S4 / WL / -- Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon and juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 43 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description Swainson’s hawk Buteo swaisoni -- / ST / S4 / -- Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis -- / S2 / SSC / Listed Southern California coastal sage scrub. Wrens require tall cactus for nesting and roosting. western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT / S3 / SSC / -- Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly, or friable soils for nesting. western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT / SE / S1 / -- Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian forests of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with well-developed understories of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE / SE / S3 / Listed Breeds in dense riparian areas associated with nearby rivers, swamps, and wetlands. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. coturniculus -- / ST / S2 / FP /-- Nests in wet meadows, shallow freshwater marshes, and the shallower or drier portions of salt marshes. Winters in shallow coastal and interior marshes the do not freeze. Occasionally found in rice fields. Does not migrate. Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi -- / SE / S3 / -- Locally common non-migratory resident of coastal saltmarsh. An obligate breeder in middle elevation saltmarsh, nearly always characterized by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), either in tidal situations or non-tidal alkaline flats nearby. Foraging primarily stems from saltmarsh and mudflat, individuals, particularly post- breeding birds, can be found foraging in a wide variety of habitats including upper marsh, adjacent ruderal and ornamental vegetation, open beach and mudflat, and even dirt and gravel parking lots. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 44 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT / S2 / SSC / Listed Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 feet in southern California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes and on mesas and slopes with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) as a dominant or co-dominant species. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis FE / -- / -- / -- Endemic to Hawaii. light-footed Ridgway’s rail Rallus obsoletus levipes FE / SE / S1 / FP / -- Found in salt marshes where cordgrass and pickleweed are the dominant vegetation. Requires dense growth of either pickleweed or cordgrass for nesting or escape cover, feeds on mollusks and crustaceans. bank swallow Riparia riparia -- / ST / S3 / -- Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Forage in open areas and avoid places with tree cover. black skimmer Rynchops niger -- / S2 / SSC /-- Open sandy beaches, on gravel or shell bars with sparse vegetation, or on mats of sea wrack (tide-stranded debris) in saltmarsh. Occasionally seen at inland lakes such as the Salton Sea of California. Much of this species' original beach habitat has been developed as houses and attractions for beachgoers. Particularly in the southeastern U.S., artificial islands made from dredge spoils are an important nesting habitat for this and other species. yellow warbler Setophaga petechia -- / S3 / SSC /-- Thickets and other disturbed or regrowing habitats, particularly along streams and wetlands. Often found in willow thickets, dwarf birch stands, aspen trees, and along the edges of fields. May occur up to 9,000 feet in elevation. Overwinter in dry scrub, marshes, and forests of lowlands. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 45 Common Name Scientific Name Status Federal / State / CDFW / OCTA NCCP, HCP General Habitat Description California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE / SE / S2 / FP /-- Nests on sandy upper ocean beaches, open barren sites, and occasionally uses mudflats. Forages on adjacent surf line, estuaries, or the open ocean where fish is abundant. Colonies are located near the ocean shoreline (within 0.5 mile [about 800 meters]), typically on nearly flat, loose sandy substrates with lightly scattered short vegetation and debris, although some colonies have been located on hard-packed surfaces, even unused asphalt. Colony sites must provide access to the shoreline for juveniles and must be relatively free of predators or the colony may abandon breeding efforts before completion. least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE / SE / S3 / Listed Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 feet. Often inhabits structurally diverse woodlands along watercourses including cottonwood- willow and oak woodlands and mulefat scrub. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, mulefat, or mesquite. General References: USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on Project area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile search centered on Project area (accessed January 2024). Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (Accessed 2024) Status Codes: No status (--) Federal Federal Endangered (FE) Federal Threatened (FT) Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE) Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT) Federal Candidate (FC) State State Endangered (SE) State Threatened (ST) State Candidate (SC) State Fully Protected Species (FP) CDFW California Special Concern Species (SSC) Included in CDFW “Watch List” (WL) Critically Imperiled (S1) Imperiled (S2) Vulnerable (S3) Apparently Secure (S4) Unranked (SNR) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP Listed IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 46 Table 8. Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program tricolored blackbird N N N N N N N N N southern California legless lizard N N N N N N N H N orange-throated whiptail N N N N N N N N N burrowing owl N N N N N N N N N Crotch bumble bee N N N N N N N H (foraging) H (nesting) N San Diego fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N ferruginous hawk N N N N N N N M (foraging) M (nesting) N Swainson’s hawk N N N N N N N M (foraging) M (nesting) N IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 47 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program coastal cactus wren N N N N N N N N N western snowy plover N N N N N N N N N green turtle N N N N N N N N N western yellow-billed cuckoo N N N N N N N N N monarch – California overwintering population N N N N N N N M (adults) L (larva) N southwestern willow flycatcher N N N N N N N N N western pond turtle N N N N N N N N N western mastiff bat N N N N N N N N N quino checkerspot butterfly N N N N N N N N N Arroyo chub N N N N N N N N N Palos Verdes blue butterfly N N N N N N N N N western yellow bat N N N N N N N N N California black rail N N N N N N N N N bobcat N N N N N N N N N ~=====t=C_J___L__j__l____________L______J___~ IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 48 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program south coast marsh vole N N N N N N N N N big free-tailed bat N N N N N N N N N steelhead – southern California DPS N N N N N N N N N Belding’s savannah sparrow N N N N N N N H (foraging) H (nesting) N Pacific pocket mouse N N N N N N N N N short-tailed albatross N N N N N N N N N coast horned lizard N N N N N N N N N coastal California gnatcatcher N N N N N N N N N Hawaiian petrel N N N N N N N N N light-footed Ridgeway’s rail N N N N N N N N N bank swallow N N N N N N N N N black skimmer N N N N N N N N N yellow warbler N N N N N N N N N IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 49 Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program southern California saltmarsh shrew N N N N N N N N N western spadefoot N N N N N N N N N California least tern N N N N N N N N N Riverside fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N least Bell’s vireo N N N N N N N N N I IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 50 5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Special Linkages Linkages and corridors facilitate regional animal movement and are generally centered in or around waterways, riparian corridors, flood control channels, contiguous habitat, and upland habitat. Drainages generally serve as movement corridors because wildlife can move easily through these areas, and fresh water is available. Corridors also offer wildlife unobstructed terrain for foraging and for dispersal of young individuals. As the movements of wildlife species are more intensively studied using radio-tracking devices, there is mounting evidence that some wildlife species do not necessarily restrict their movements to some obvious landscape element, such as a riparian corridor. For example, recent radio-tracking and tagging studies of Coast Range newts, California red-legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, and two-striped garter snakes found that long-distance dispersal involved radial or perpendicular movements away from a water source with little regard to the orientation of the assumed riparian “movement corridor” (Bulger et al. 2002; Hunt 1993; Ramirez 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Rathbun et al. 1992; Trenham 2002). Likewise, carnivores do not necessarily use riparian corridors as movement corridors, frequently moving overland in a straight line between two points when traversing large distances (Beier 1993, 1995; Newmark 1995; Noss et al. 1996, n.d.). In general, the following corridor functions can be utilized when evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors: • Movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between patches of suitable habitat. Simberloff et al. (1992) and Beier and Loe (1992) correctly state that for most species, we do not know what corridor traits (length, width, adjacent land use, etc.) are required for a corridor to be useful. But, as Beier and Loe (1992) also note, the critical features of a movement corridor may not be its physical traits but rather how well a particular piece of land fulfills several functions, including allowing dispersal, plant propagation, genetic interchange, and recolonization following local extirpation. • Dispersal corridors are relatively narrow, linear landscape features embedded in a dissimilar matrix that link two or more areas of suitable habitat that would otherwise be fragmented and isolated from one another by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human-altered environments. Corridors of habitat are essential to the local and regional population dynamics of a species because they provide physical links for genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. • Habitat linkages are broader connections between two or more habitat areas. This term is commonly used as a synonym for a wildlife corridor (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Habitat linkages may themselves serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-size animals. • Travel routes are usually landscape features, such as ridgelines, drainages, canyons, or riparian corridors, within larger natural habitat areas that are frequently used by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to water, food, cover, den sites, and other necessary resources. A travel route is generally preferred by a species because it provides the least amount of IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 5 Special-Status Biological Resources Project Number: 2042665000 51 topographic resistance in moving from one area to another yet still provides adequate food, water, or cover (Meffe and Carroll 1997). • Wildlife crossings are small, narrow areas of limited extent that allow wildlife to bypass an obstacle or barrier. Crossings typically are human-made and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, bridges, tunnels to provide access past roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Wildlife crossings often represent “choke points” along a movement corridor because unseable habitat is physically constricted at the crossing by human-induced changes to the surrounding areas (Meffee and Carroll 1997). 5.5.1 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA The Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. These are comprised of shopping centers and paved parking lots, fenced parks, disturbed open space, and a golf course. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement including buildings, fences, and multi-lane roadways. These areas may harbor common species habituated to life in urban environments such as Virginia opossum, raccoon, desert cottontail, California ground squirrel, coyote, various birds, and small rodents. In addition, the Project area is within the Pacific Flyway, a major north- south flyway for migratory birds in America, extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Each year, at least one billion birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway (Audubon 2024). Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, the area do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. The Project area does not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage as identified by the Wildlands Network (2024). IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 6 Conclusions Project Number: 2042665000 52 6 Conclusions Without mitigation, implementation of the proposed Project may result in temporary and permanent impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species, and wetland habitats. The Applicant proposed the following avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs) to avoid or minimize Project impacts to biological resources during and after construction. These measures represent conservative guidelines in terms of minimizing impacts to vegetation, jurisdictional waters, and wildlife due to construction activities. 6.1 Potential Onsite Impacts Potential impacts for each of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program defer based on the habitat present within and adjacent to each location. Below is summary of potential impacts associated with each eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. Housing Opportunity Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Site. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, nor does it contain and wetlands or other waters. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special- status plant or animal species, nor does it contain any wetlands or other waters within its boundary. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 3 – Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.). The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, nor does it contain any wetland or other waters. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Shops at Rossmoor. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, nor does it contain any wetland or other water features. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, nor does it contain any wetland or other water features within its boundary. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 6 Conclusions Project Number: 2042665000 53 Housing Opportunity Site 6 – Seal Beach Plaza. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special- status plant or animal species, nor does it contain any wetland or other waters within its boundary. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 7 – Seal Beach Center. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, nor does it contain and wetlands or other waters. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina. The primary land cover at the 99 Marina site is ruderal herbaceous with interspersed trees and disturbed/developed including a paved parking area and handball court. This site does not contain and wetlands or other waters. This site has a low likelihood for the following species to be present: Coulter’s goldenfields; Coulter’s saltbush; southern tarplant; and monarch butterfly larva; depending on presence of host plant (milkweed). There is a moderate likelihood for the following species to be present: ferruginous hawk (foraging and nesting), Swainson’s hawk (foraging and nesting), and monarch butterfly (foraging adults). Finally, there is a high likelihood for the southern California legless lizard and Belding’s savannah sparrow to be present on Housing Opportunity Site 8. Project implementation has the potential to impact the above listed species should they be present. Main Street Program. The entirely of this site is developed with commercials stores and paved parking with interspersed trees and does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or animal species, or does it contain and wetlands or other waters within its boundary. However, there is potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to be nesting in the trees that a dispersed on this site. Based on the habitat types within and surrounding this Project area, there is a low likelihood for the following species to be present: Coulter’s goldenfields; Coulter’s saltbush; southern tarplant; and monarch butterfly larva, depending on presence of host plant (milkweed). There is a moderate likelihood for the following species to be present: ferruginous hawk (foraging and nesting), Swainson’s hawk (foraging and nesting), and monarch butterfly (foraging adults). Finally, there is a high likelihood for the southern California legless lizards, and Belding’s savannah sparrow to be present at this site. 6.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Areas As described in Section 4.1, areas adjacent to the Project area provide suitable habitat for sensitive species. Housing Opportunity Sites 2 and 4, are adjacent to undeveloped, agricultural, or other open space that may also provide habitat for special-status species. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 54 7 References Aubry, K. B., L. L. C. Jones, and P. A. Hall. 1988. Use of woody debris by plethodontid salamanders in Douglas-fir in Washington. Pages 32-37 in R. C. Szabo, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America. General technical report RM-166. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Audubon. 2024. The Pacific Flyaway. Available online: http://www.audubon.org/pacific-flyway. Accessed January 2024. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, D.H. Wilken (eds.) 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed. University Press, Berkeley, California. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology, 7: 94-108. _____. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228 237. Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440. Bulger, J., N. Scott, and R. Seymour. 2002. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands. Biol. Conservation 15: 234 245. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024a. RAREFIND database. January 2024 Electronic database managed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals, Species of Special Concern, Rare Plants, Sensitive Natural Communities. Wildlife Data and Habitat Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CDFW. 2024b. Special Animals List. Online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline. Accessed January 2024. City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. Available online: https://www.sealbeachca. gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-Development/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2024. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento. Online: http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed January 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 55 Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F., LaRoe, E. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2024. Green Turtle. Online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/green-turtle. Accessed January 2024. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2024. Web Soil Survey 2.0. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Website accessed January 2024. County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. Accessed online: https://www.ocgov.com/ gov/pw/cd/planning/generalplan2005.asp. Accessed January 2024. OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority). 2009. Orange County Transportation Authority/ California Department of Transportation Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=16025&inline. Accessed online January 2024. Hunt, L.E. 1993. Relocation and movements of southwestern pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata pallida), upper Santa Ynez River, Santa Barbara County, California. Prep. for the City of Santa Barbara and U.S. Forest Service. 135 pp. Maser, C. and J.M. Trappe, tech eds. 1984. The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-164. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 56 p. Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, New York, NY. Newmark, W. 1995. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American national parks. Conservation Biology, 9: 512-526. Noss, R., P. Beier, and W. Shaw. n.d. Evaluation of the Coal Canyon biological corridor, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, California. Unpub. ms. 19 pp Noss, R., H. Quigley, M. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949-963. Ramirez, R. 2003a. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) radio telemetry study, San Juan Creek, Orange County, California. Prep. for Rancho Mission Viejo LLC, San Juan Capistrano, CA. October. 64 pp. _____. 2003b. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) hydrogeomorphic habitat baseline analysis/radio telemetry study, Rancho Las Flores, San Bernardino County, CA. November. 110 pp. _____. 2002. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) radio telemetry and pitfall trapping studies, Little Horsethief Canyon, Summit Valley Ranch, San Bernardino County, California. Prep. for CALTRANS, Dept. of Transportation, San Bernardino, CA. April. 92 pp. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 56 Rathbun, G.N. Siepel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata). Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):319-324. Sawyer et al. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition. Online Manual. Online: https://www.cnps.org/vegetation/manual-of-california-vegetation. Accessed January 2024. Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: Conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6(4): 493-504. Wildlands Network. 2024. California Wildlife Crossing Database. Online: https://wn.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=e16c15ec12724112866fd6da 02f5a77a. Accessed January 2024. Trenham, P. 2002. Herpetologist, USGS. Conversation regarding dispersal movements of radio-tagged California newts (Taricha torosa) in Monterey County, California. June. USACE and CDFG (United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan Joint Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2000011025. USACE and USEPA. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. USACE and USEPA Memorandum. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016- 02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf. Accessed October 2024. U.S. Climate Data. 2024. Climate Long Beach - California. Online: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/long-beach/california/united-states/usca0632. Accessed January 2024. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). Online: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Accessed January 2024. USFWS. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data. Online: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/data-download.html. Accessed January 2024. USFWS. 2024c. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Online: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach. Accessed January 2024. USFWS. 2024d. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Online Mapper. Online: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b 8dbfb77. Accessed January 2024. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) GIS data. Online: usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=41a5c2ca49bd4a83b239450e61022d53 Accessed January 2024. IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Project Number: 2042665000 APPENDICES IJ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Figures Appendix A Figures Figure 1-1. Project Location Overview Figure 2-1. Soils Figure 3-1. National Wetland Inventory Figure 4-1 – 4-6. 10 Mile CNDDB Results Figure 5-1. Regulated and Protected Areas I I I I 3 1 8 2 5 7 6 4 1 - 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 Project Location Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Street Map: City of Long Beach, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet Reem ton H,B Mun1e1p I ii:i ,If Cour , E 6th St olo111do f,fanna Lia ¢ g ! "- ~Santoso,. ~ ~....,o ii E Marirast ~ ;; Q. Whaley S.JnPedro Bay EAthertonSt Callforna StateUnrver"rty Lon;i Beach Pacific Ocean Gum Grove Rark c,atalina AYe ,, , Surfside " 0:: f' alBea:h l\btonal W1klbfe-Refuge Sun t Aquah: Park ·; ..J Saratoga Ave Yorktown Ave Constitution Ave Jo111t Forces T1a1n1rg 011 Ran h Country C lub Westnunster Blvd Na ... al W.ap,:,n s Staton Seal Beach Edinger Ave Trin i dad I s land Center Heil Ave () Stantec N,,y ■ GoW ■ Course Dun 3 1 8 2 5 7 6 4 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ1 §¨¦405Los Alamitos ChannelSan Gabriel River 2 - 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program Soil Map Unit Symbol 100; Alo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes 123; Bolsa silt loam, drained 125; Bolsa silty clay loam, drained 162; Marina loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes 173; Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 Soils Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. Soils from NRCS 2024. 3. Background: NAIP 2022 60cm California: California 60cm NAIP Imagery 2022. (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet () Stantec □ □ P a c i f i c O c e a n 3 1 8 2 5 7 6 4 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ1 §¨¦405Los Alamitos ChannelSan Gab riel R iver3 - 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program National Wetlands Inventory Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 National Wetlands Inventory Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. NWI from USFWS 2023. 3. Background: NAIP 2022 60cm California: California 60cm NAIP Imagery 2022. (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet () Stantec a a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 BolsaChica ChannelLos Alamitos ChannelSan GabrielRiver4 - 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Plants Davidson's saltscale Brand's star phacelia California Orcutt grass southern tarplant Coulter's saltbush Los Angeles sunflower coast woolly-heads Coulter's goldfields decumbent goldenbush Terrestrial Communities Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Southern Coastal Salt Marsh V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Plants & Terrestrial Communities Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics California 60cm NAIP Imagery 2022. (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a □ rn r• _,. n r:. □ r• _,. [] □ !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!([ [[[[[[[[[[[ P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 San GabrielRiver4 - 2 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Plants chaparral sand-verbena smooth tarplant mud nama !(!(!(Lyon's pentachaeta lucky morning-glory salt marsh bird's-beak Gambel's water cress Parish's brittlescale San Bernardino aster prostrate vernal pool navarretia salt spring checkerbloom estuary seablite [[Ventura Marsh milk-vetch Sanford's arrowhead Horn's milk-vetch Terrestrial Communities Southern Foredunes Southern Dune Scrub V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Plants & Terrestrial Communities Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a a ~ t.i □ r.:'."l 1..:.:::.1 r• --[I] □ E3 ~ □ C ■ □ □ □ !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 §¨¦710 BolsaChica ChannelLos Alamitos ChannelSan GabrielRiver4 - 3 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Wildlife American bumble bee Belding's savannah sparrow California black rail California brown pelican California least tern Crotch bumble bee Dorothy's El Segundo Dune weevil Pacific pocket mouse Palos Verdes blue butterfly San Gabriel chestnut Southern California legless lizard !(!(!(Swainson's hawk V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Wildlife Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a □ □ □ □ □ EJ ■ -, ·-[I] m 6Zl □ P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 §¨¦710 BolsaChica ChannelLos Alamitos ChannelSanGabri el River 4 - 4 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Wildlife bank swallow big free-tailed bat black skimmer burrowing owl coast horned lizard coastal California gnatcatcher coastal cactus wren ferruginous hawk globose dune beetle green turtle least Bell's vireo light-footed Ridgway's rail V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Wildlife Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a □ -, ,_ □ -, ·-□ □ ~ -, ·-□ am [a □ P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 §¨¦710 BolsaChica ChannelLos Alamitos ChannelSan GabrielRiver4 - 5 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Wildlife mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) monarch - California overwintering population quino checkerspot butterfly sandy beach tiger beetle senile tiger beetle silver-haired bat south coast marsh vole southern California saltmarsh shrew steelhead - southern California DPS tricolored blackbird wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Wildlife Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a P a c i f i c O c e a n ·|}þ1 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ39 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ19 ·|}þ73 ·|}þ103 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ91 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ47 ·|}þ55 ·|}þ90 ·|}þ57 ·|}þ1 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦105 §¨¦110 §¨¦405 §¨¦405 §¨¦710 §¨¦710 BolsaChica ChannelLos Alamitos ChannelSanGabri el River 4 - 6 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program 10 Mile Search Radius 10 Mile CNDDB Results Wildlife western beach tiger beetle western mastiff bat western pond turtle western ridged mussel western snowy plover western spadefoot western tidal-flat tiger beetle western yellow bat western yellow-billed cuckoo yellow warbler yellow-breasted chat V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 10 Mile CNDDB Results - Wildlife Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. CNDDB from CDFW 2024. 3. Background: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1.75 3.5 Miles () Stantec ■ ■ a 3 1 8 2 5 7 6 4 Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP ·|}þ22 ·|}þ22 ·|}þ1 §¨¦405Los Alamitos ChannelSan Gabriel River 5 - 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program Conservation Plan Boundaries, HCP and NCCP California Protected Areas Coastal Zone Management Act Boundary Local Coastal Program Segments City of Long Beach City of Seal Beach SEADIP (Cerritos Wetlands) ADC Seal Beach - NWR - US Naval Weapons Station V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-21 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-21 TR by SET on 2024-10-21 IR by JV on 2024-10-21 Regulated and Protected Areas Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: NAIP 2022 60cm California: California 60cm NAIP Imagery 2022. (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:38,006,721"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet () Stantec a a □ □ ■ ■ ■ ■ CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES USFWS IPaC Species List Appendix B USFWS IPaC Species List January 16, 2024 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 431-5901 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0036735 Project Name: City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 2 of 8 ▪ evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov). The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 3 of 8 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 (760) 431-9440 Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 4 of 8 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0036735 Project Name:City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Type:Residential Construction Project Description:BRTR Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@33.76080425,-118.09023313760493,14z Counties:Los Angeles and Orange counties, California Lon B aoo H un 1ngton 8e Jd"J o..;ov i11 omon nall e1 m San a A n 01 JJltii L ke Fo i i:::.1 t. ~,I I Viej o Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 5 of 8 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 16 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Pacific Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8080 Endangered 1 Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 6 of 8 BIRDS NAME STATUS California Least Tern Sternula antillarum browni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104 Endangered Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178 Threatened Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6746 Endangered Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945 Endangered Light-footed Ridgeway''''s Rail Rallus obsoletus levipes No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6035 Endangered Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/433 Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749 Endangered Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Population: Pacific Coast population DPS-U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Mexico (within 50 miles of Pacific coast) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Threatened REPTILES NAME STATUS Southwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys pallida No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4768 Proposed Threatened INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 7 of 8 CRUSTACEANS NAME STATUS Riverside Fairy Shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8148 Endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6945 Endangered FLOWERING PLANTS NAME STATUS Salt Marsh Bird's-beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6447 Endangered San Diego Button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5937 Endangered Ventura Marsh Milk-vetch Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1160 Endangered CRITICAL HABITATS There are 2 critical habitats wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. NAME STATUS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178#crithab Final Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035#crithab Final Project code: 2024-0036735 01/16/2024 8 of 8 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Stantec Name:Allison Loveless Address:9797 Aero Drive Address Line 2:Suite 310 City:San Diego State:CA Zip:92123 Email ally.marcella@gmail.com Phone:5303559748 Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project April 18, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Emily Rinaldi-Williams E. Timothy Jones, M.A., RPA Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Stantec Project Number: 2042665000 () Stantec Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 The conclusions in the Report titled Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from City of Seal Beach (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result. Prepared by: Signature Emily Rinaldi-Williams Printed Name Reviewed by: Signature E. Timothy Jones Printed Name Approved by: Signature Susan Davis Printed Name IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... III Preparer Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. iv 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 National Register of Historic Places .............................................................................................. 5 2.2 California Register of Historical Resources ................................................................................... 6 2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................................. 7 2.4 Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) ............................................................................................................... 8 2.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 ....................................................................... 9 2.6 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 ..................................................................... 9 2.7 City of Seal Beach ....................................................................................................................... 10 3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL SETTINGS ..................................................... 11 3.1 Housing Opportunity Sites Description ........................................................................................ 11 3.2 Archaeological and Ethnographic Contexts ................................................................................ 26 3.2.1 Precontact Archaeology .............................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Ethnography ................................................................................................................................ 28 3.3 History of Seal Beach, 1857‒2000 .............................................................................................. 29 4 RESEARCH AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 34 4.1 CHRIS Records Search............................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1 P-30-000143 (CA-ORA-143) ....................................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 P-30-000264 (CA-ORA-264) ....................................................................................................... 35 4.1.3 P-30-001546 ................................................................................................................................ 35 4.2 California Built Environment Resource Directory ........................................................................ 35 4.3 NAHC Sacred Lands File and Tribal Outreach ........................................................................... 35 4.4 Additional Research .................................................................................................................... 36 5 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................ 38 5.1 Impacts to Built-Environment Historical Resources .................................................................... 38 5.2 Impacts to Archaeological Resources ......................................................................................... 40 6 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 42 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 43 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Housing Opportunity Sites .............................................................................................................. 2 Table 2. Estimated Year Built for Properties within Housing Opportunity Sites ......................................... 11 Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in Project Area ............................................................ 34 Table 4. Previously Recorded BERD Resources ....................................................................................... 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Location and Vicinity ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 4 IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 ii IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 iii Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) prepared this Cultural Resources Assessment Report on behalf of the City of Seal Beach (City) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). The Project identifies eight Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Additionally, the Project includes the Main Street Program area. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA in all income categories. The Project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires the lead agency to assess whether a discretionary project would impact historical resources inclusive of historic built environment resources, precontact and historic archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources. The City is the CEQA lead agency for the Project. In accordance with relevant state guidelines for cultural resources, this report identifies and documents potential cultural resources on or near the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program and assesses the Project’s potential to result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of an archaeological or historical resource pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5. For this Cultural Resources Assessment Report, the Project area is defined as the eight Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout Seal Beach as well as the Main Street Specific Plan area. To identify any listed or previously surveyed cultural resources on the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The records search identified three precontact archaeological sites at, or in the vicinity of, one of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites: P-30-000143, P-30-000246, and P-30-001546. These sites contain dietary shell, ground stone, and flaked stone artifacts. Two of these sites have reported Native American skeletal remains. Additionally, a Sacred Lands File search conducted at the Native American Heritage Commission yielded a “positive” result. The City is currently undertaking outreach and consultation with local Native American tribes to assess the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The threshold for determining significant impacts on historical resources in the CEQA Guidelines is whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change, which is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration, of the resource or its immediate vicinity such that the historical resource is materially impaired. The Project has the potential to have direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts on historical resources and archaeological cultural resources. Project impacts to built- environment historical resources may be potentially significant. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures discussed in this report by the lead agency would reduce the impact to historical resources. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the Project’s impacts to built- environment historical resources would be less than significant. Project impacts to archaeological IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report Project Number: 2042665000 iv cultural resources and human remains may also be potentially significant, and mitigation is proposed to reduce this impact to less than significant. Preparer Qualifications Stantec personnel who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history, history, and/or archaeology as defined in 36 CFR Part 61 prepared this report. Stantec staff who prepared this report consist of Emily Rinaldi-Williams, E. Timothy Jones, and Althea Wunderler-Selby. Ms. Rinaldi is a Stantec Senior Architectural Historian who received a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation from Columbia University and has more than nine years of cultural resources management experience. Ms. Rinaldi-Williams qualifies as an Architectural Historian and Historian under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. E. Timothy Jones is a Stantec Principal Archaeologist who received a Master of Arts degree in Cultural Resources Management from Sonoma State University. He is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with 23 years of cultural resources management experience and qualifies as an Archeologist under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Ms. Wunderler-Selby is a Stantec Architectural Historian who holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from the University of Rhode Island and a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation from the University of Oregon. She has five years of cultural resources management experience and qualifies as an Architectural Historian and Historian under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 1 Project Overview Project Number: 2042665000 1 1 Project Overview 1.1 Project Description The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach’s Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023. The Housing Element Update was then updated again in March 2024 in response to comments received from HCD. The most up-to-date version of the Housing Element Update is from August 2024. The City prepared the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The Project involves implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City, as shown on Figure 2, that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Element Update identifies eight Housing Opportunity Sites, two of which are underutilized sites that do not require rezoning and the remaining six sites are proposed for zoning modifications. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a proposal of the Main Street Program. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific Housing Opportunity Sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, the site location of the residential component of the Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Specific Plan Project is reviewed at a programmatic level; however, the information provided herein is for informational purposes only and a standalone Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the ORCC Specific Plan Project. For a full project description, see the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Stantec 2024). 1.2 Project Location The Project area currently comprises eight Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City of Seal Beach and totaling approximately 83.45 acres. However, the majority of the Housing Opportunity IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 1 Project Overview Project Number: 2042665000 2 Sites would only allow for development within portions of the overall Housing Opportunity Site due to existing development, and therefore, the total developable acres for the Housing Opportunity Sites would total 35.05 acres. Additionally, the Project area includes the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Main Street Program falls within the boundaries of the existing 21-acre Main Street Specific Plan area located within the City and the development potential for the Main Street Program is not based on potential developable acreage but rather the number of units that could be developed at select locations within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles (Figure 1). The locations of the eight identified sites are shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 1. Table 1. Housing Opportunity Sites Site No. Site Name Location Assessor Parcel Number(s) 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 199-061-01 2 Leisure World 13681 El Dorado Dr 095-691-04 3 Accurate Storage 1011 Seal Beach Blvd 095-791-18 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 12343 Seal Beach Blvd 086-492-51 5 Old Ranch Town Center East side of Seal Beach Blvd between Plymouth Dr and St. Cloud Dr 130-861-14, -15, -16, -17, -18, - 19, -20, -21, -22, -23, -24, -25, - 26, -27 6 Seal Beach Plaza West side of Seal Beach Blvd between Westminster Blvd and St. Andrews Dr 095-641-44, -49, -55, -56, -57 7 Seal Beach Center 901 Pacific Coast Hwy, 1111 Pacific Coast Hwy 043-260-02, -05 8 99 Marina Drive 99 Marina Dr 199-011-10 IJ 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Optional Site for Future Development V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-17 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-17 IR by TJ on 2024-10-17 Project Location and Vicinity Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:150,000"($$¯0 1 2 Miles ~ I Ba,111 Outer Harbor Long Beach Outer Harbor -<::arson St-t------ l 2:l .~ Dee-n 8ivcJ -. .o ') ------------J J San Pedro Bay Pacific Ocean ,,;_o~. 01'~1" -, se Ce-:.-rc h I • Cypr ess Carbon creel< Joint Forces __ Training Ce nter N.:ival We p:,ns Stat,on Seal Beach S uns e l Bea c h l onco l n·Ave SeZtchff Co unt') C lub Brea Creek !3111 H unting ton Be' ch Ell is Av () Stantec ■ ■ 2 - City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-17 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-17 IR by TJ on 2024-10-17 Project Location Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Ocean Reference: NOAA OCS, Esri, Garmin World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA World Ocean Base: Esri, Garmin, NaturalVue (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1 E Los Sant os Dr 1' ... t t t;J I I fw ,o I~ I I I ,r I ,o I \ \ 2n d Sl I \ Kem pt on Dr ,:, 0:: C Tucke , Ln i g Engel Dr ~ "' ~ ertrude Dr ij ,!,,f <o"'o ~o ~1>'~ uc}o<f' Apoll o Cl "- Ma1nway Dr Bl ume Dr Leisure Wor ld Golf Course " "' ~()\ '§ '1-"o <> o""' ii ~ " "C "' Bra db u1)' Rd ~ " ~ "' .c t) " g in (Il ~ g C 0: ~ a. in g, ~ "' Old Ranch Country C lub Const1luhon Ave 22 San•Diego ... fwy CA·-22 •W CA-22•E L ei sure World I Wes tm mster B lv d US Government Yorktown Ave Dooll l Ue Av e Joint Fo Training C Candl ebcrry Ave B11 ChwoodAve Alm ond Ave () Stantec ■ Ana 2 - City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Optional Site for Future Development V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-17 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-17 IR by TJ on 2024-10-17 Project Location Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000"($$¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet 2 Alamitos Bay Al.:im1to Bay r•.tanna Pac1f1c Ocean \ I E 2nd SI tJ,afV\s\a Ave , ... 0 I ~ I ~ I ~ ,a I r, ~ I • ~ I ~ !I. Apoll o Ct p,nchorWay Pelorus Ave ,_ N aval Y,'ea n a "' 0 ~ (\ % <i q. " V) -v, ~ ~~ q. I Stantec ■ ■ t, ~ ~"' Ana Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 5 2 Regulatory Context Generally, a lead agency must consider a property a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—inclusive of historic built resources and precontact/historic archaeological resources—if it is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), which is modeled after the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A property is presumed to be historically significant if it is listed in a local register of historical resources or has been identified as historically significant in a historic resources survey (provided certain statutory criteria and requirements are satisfied) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the property is not historically or culturally significant. A lead agency may also treat a resource as historical if it meets statutory requirements and substantial evidence supports the conclusion. 2.1 National Register of Historic Places The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, authorized the creation of the NRHP. The NRHP is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment (Title 36 CFR Part 60.2).” For a property to be considered eligible for the NRHP, it must typically be at least 50 years old and meet one or more of four criteria for evaluation set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (Title 36 CFR Part 60.4). A property must also be significant within a historic context under one or more of the criteria listed above. “National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” states that the significance of a historic property can be judged only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific...property or site is understood and its meaning...is made clear (Title 36 CFR Part 60.4).” A historic property must therefore represent an important aspect of history or prehistory. In addition to possessing significance, a property must possess integrity, defined by seven aspects: IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 6 Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place. Design: the composition of elements that constitute the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place. Materials: the physical elements combined in a particular pattern or configuration. Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history. Feeling: the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. Association: the direct link between a property and the event or person for which the property is significant (Andrus and Shrimpton undated). 2.2 California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR was established in 1992 by Assembly Bill 2881. It is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts (Andrus and Shrimpton undated). The criteria for eligibility of listing in the CRHR are based upon the NRHP criteria, and are identified as 1‒4 instead of A‒D. To be eligible for the CRHR, a property generally must be at least 50 years of age and must possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of these four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Like the NRHP, properties eligible for the CRHR may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts. The enabling legislation for the CRHR is less rigorous than the NRHP with regard to the issue of integrity, yet the expectation is that eligible properties should retain enough of their historic-period character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance (California OHP undated). Evaluations for the CRHR are based upon the evaluation instructions and classification system prescribed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in its “Instructions for Recording IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 7 Historical Resources,” which include Status Codes to classify potential historical resources. These Status Codes are used statewide in the preparation of historical resource surveys and evaluation reports. The specific Status Codes referred to in this report are: 2S2 Individually determined eligible for the NRHP by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CRHR. 5S1 Individually listed or designated locally. 6Y Determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CRHR or local listing. Appears individually eligible for the NRHP through survey evaluation. 7P State Point of Historical Interest that does not meet the CRHR criteria. The CRHR may include properties identified during historic resource surveys. However, properties included must be based on surveys that meet these criteria: 1. The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; 2. The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office (OHP) procedures and requirements; 3. The resource is evaluated and determined by the office (OHP) to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on a DPR Form 523; and 4. If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the CRHR, the survey is updated to identify historical resources that have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those that have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1). 2.3 California Environmental Quality Act The State CEQA Guidelines set the standard for determining whether a proposed project will result in a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of historical resources in Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b), which states: “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b]).” Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b)(1) further clarifies “substantial adverse change” as: “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][1]).” IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 8 Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b)(2) in turn explains that a historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project: “Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][2]).” As a result, the test for determining if a proposed project will have a significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether the project will alter the physical integrity of the historical resource in an adverse manner such that it would no longer be eligible for the NRHP, the CRHR, or other landmark programs. This report considers direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to historical resources using these definitions: • Direct or primary impacts are caused by the project and occur at the same time and place (Title 14 CCR §15358 [a][1]). • Indirect impacts, or secondary effects, are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place (Title 14 CCR §15358 [a][2]). • Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (14 CCR Section 15355). If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project would have on the resource. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels (14 CCR Section 15126.4(a)(1)). 2.4 Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. PRC Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are: Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following: • Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 9 • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “non-unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency. The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). 2.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. 2.6 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 Section 5097.98 of the California PRC states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to HSC Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendent or “MLD”) it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 2 Regulatory Context Project Number: 2042665000 10 2.7 City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach adopted Resolution No. 6584 on July 27, 2015, which established the Historic Preservation Committee. The Committee comprises five citizens, one from each of the five Voting Districts with an interest in preserving resources associated with the history and culture of Seal Beach. The City also adopted Resolution No. 6618 on January 25, 2016, that established guidelines, policies, and procedures for designating historic resources. Eight guidelines were adopted for designation, and only one needs to be met in order for the City to designate a historic resource. The City’s Residential Conservation Overlay District Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1598) defines locally significant historic structures as “those residential structures constructed prior to 1925” (Title 11 Part III Chapter 11.3.05.005). The Ordinance states: “These locally-significant historic structures represent the city’s unique historical, social and cultural foundations and should be preserved as living parts of community life and development in order to build a greater understanding of the city’s past and give future generations the opportunity to appreciate, understand and enjoy the city’s remaining historic heritage (Title 11 Part III Chapter 11.3.05.005).” Unlike the NRHP and CRHR, the City’s Residential Conservation Overlay District Ordinance has no criteria for designating properties as locally-significant historic structures and makes no mention of concepts such as physical integrity or period of significance. The Seal Beach Historic Resources Foundation currently acts as a hub and repository for historic photographs and stories to preserve and celebrate the history of Seal Beach. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 11 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings 3.1 Housing Opportunity Sites Description The Project comprises eight Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed over the city’s roughly 13 square miles. The sites range in size from 0.25 to 27 acres. Most are developed with commercial or mixed-use buildings that have a range of construction dates from the early twentieth century to the 2010s (Table 2). The sites are generally within highly developed, urban areas along major thoroughfares, including the Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The topography is relatively flat and adjacent buildings are generally low scale, one to two stories tall. Stantec compiled the following site descriptions via a desktop survey using Google Street View. Google Street View images generally range from 2021 to 2023. Table 2. Estimated Year Built for Properties within Housing Opportunity Sites Site No. Site Name Location Assessor Parcel Number(s) Estimated Year Built 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 199-061-01 1966 2 Leisure World 13681 El Dorado Dr 095-691-04 ca. 1970 3 Accurate Storage 1011 Seal Beach Blvd 095-791-18 ca. 1980 4 The Shops at Rossmoor Building 4A 12343 Seal Beach Blvd 086-492-51 ca. 2007 Building 4B ca. 2007 Building 4C ca. 1970 Building 4D ca. 2003 Building 4E ca. 2003 Building 4F ca. 2011 Building 4G ca. 2011 Building 4H ca. 2011 Building 4I ca. 2013 Building 4J ca. 2013 5 Old Ranch Town Center East side of Seal Beach Blvd between Plymouth Dr and St. Cloud Dr 130-861-14, -15, -16, - 17, -18, -19, -20, -21, - 22, -23, -24, -25, -26, - 27 ca. 2001 6 Seal Beach Plaza Building 6A West side of Seal Beach Blvd between Westminster Blvd and St. Andrews Dr 095-641-44, -49, -55, - 56, -57 ca. 1965 Building 6B ca. 2001 Building 6C ca. 1960 Building 6D ca. 1960 Building 6E ca. 1965 IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 12 Site No. Site Name Location Assessor Parcel Number(s) Estimated Year Built Building 6F ca. 1965 Building 6G ca. 1960 Building 6H ca. 1960 Building 6I ca. 1960 Building 6J ca. 1970 Building 6K ca. 2005 Building 6L ca. 1970 7 Seal Beach Center Building 7A 901 Pacific Coast Hwy, 1111 Pacific Coast Hwy 043-260-02, -05 1966 Building 7B 1966 Building 7C ca. 2007 8 99 Marina Drive 99 Marina Dr 199-011-10 ca. 1975 Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway Photograph 1. View of Site 1, looking southwest (Google Street View, September 2022). Site 1 is approximately 0.25 acres at the southwestern corner of the Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard intersection (Photograph 1). A one-story, Mid-Century Modern commercial building constructed in 1966 is located along the south parcel boundary with an asphalt-paved surface parking lot to the north (NETR 1963, 1972; The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1966b). The building has a front gable roof and is constructed of masonry that has been painted. Two commercial storefronts extend along the north façade with large plate glass, metal-frame windows. One entrance is on the east façade and consists of paired fully-glazed metal doors. The other entrance is near the west end of the north façade and consists of a single fully-glazed metal door. la Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 13 Site 2 – Leisure World Photograph 2. View of Site 2, looking southwest (Google Street View, January 2018). Site 2 is approximately 5.5 acres on the west side of El Dorado Drive near the Knollwood Road intersection (Photograph 2). It is bordered on the west by the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The site is an RV parking lot built between 1963 and 1972 (NETR, 1963, 1972). It is paved with asphalt and surrounded by a concrete block wall and metal chain link fence. Site 3 – Accurate Storage Photograph 3. View of Site 3, looking northwest (Google Street View, September 2022). Site 3 is approximately four acres on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between Apollo Drive and Adolfo Lopez Drive (Photograph 3). A one-story self-storage commercial warehouse built between 1972 and 1988 is located near the east parcel boundary with an asphalt-paved surface parking lot to the west (NETR 1972, 1988). The building is of no particular style. It has a flat roof surrounded by a concrete IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 14 parapet and is constructed of concrete. The main entrance is near the south end of the west façade and consists of a single fully-glazed metal door. Rows of deeply recessed metal-frame picture windows with metal bulkheads wrap around the southwest corner. Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor Site 4 is approximately 27 acres on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. Ten commercial buildings are located on the parcel with the remainder occupied by an asphalt-paved surface parking lot. Photograph 4. View of Buildings 4A‒4C, looking southwest (Google Street View, March 2021). Building 4A is at the north end of the parcel adjacent to Rossmoor Center Way (Photograph 4). It was likely constructed between 2005 and 2009 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan (NETR 2005, 2009). It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is clad in composition panels. The main entrance is on the west façade within a projecting arcade topped by a metal awning. The entrance consists of two paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. To the north of the entrance fixed metal clearstory windows topped with a flat awning rise above the adjacent roofline. Building 4B is immediately to the south of Building 4A and shares a party wall (Photograph 4). It was likely constructed between 2005 and 2009 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan (NETR 2005, 2009). It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice. A parapet that is taller than the adjacent roofline is centered on the east façade. The exterior is clad in composition panels. The main entrance is on the east façade beneath the parapet and flanked by piers. The entrance contains two paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. Building 4C is to the south of Building 4B, separated by an alley (Photograph 4). It was constructed between 1963 and 1972 with an addition on the east façade constructed between 1972 and 1988 (NETR 1963, 1972, 1988). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with concrete coping and is clad in stucco, brick, and composition panels. It has three entrances along the IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 15 south façade within rectangular entry surrounds projecting southward from the adjacent wall plane. All entrances consist of paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill and are topped by metal awnings. Building 4D is to the southwest of Building 4C, separated by a driveway. The building was constructed between 2002 and 2003 and is one story in height and irregular in plan (NETR 2002, 2003). It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is generally clad in stucco. The main entrance is at the center of the east façade and consists of paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors with fixed metal windows to the north. Six stucco-clad piers with tile-clad bases ornament the east façade. The building is topped by a metal awning. Photograph 5. View of Buildings 4E and 4F, looking northwest (Google Street View, January 2021). Building 4E is to the south of Building 4D and shares a party wall (Photograph 5). It was constructed between 2002 and 2003 and is one story in height and irregular in plan (NETR 2002, 2003). The building has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is clad in brick, stucco, permastone, and tile. The main entrance is at the center of the east façade. It is recessed within an arched cast stone door surround and consists of two paired fully-glazed metal doors. It is topped by a semicircular flat awning. Stepped piers and concrete panels with cast stone surrounds frame the main entrance. Building 4F is to the south of Building 4D and shares a party wall (Photograph 5). It was constructed between 2010 and 2012 and is one story in height and irregular in plan (NETR 2010, 2012). It has a flat roof with concrete coping and is clad in stucco, brick, and composition panels. The main entrance is at the center of the east façade within a rectangular entry surround projecting eastward from the adjacent wall plane and topped by a flat awning. The entrance consists of paired sliding metal doors flanked by paired fully-glazed metal doors. Fixed metal windows are above the main entrance. Building 4G is to the east of Building 4C along the east parcel boundary. It was constructed between 2010 and 2012 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan (NETR 2010, 2012). It has a flat roof with a concrete coping and is clad in composition panels and stucco. Four storefronts are on the west façade, each with paired fully-glazed metal doors and metal storefront infill. Fixed metal clearstory windows topped with a flat awning rise above the adjacent roofline at the west façade’s south end. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 16 Photograph 6. View of Building 5H, looking northwest (Google Street View, January 2023). Building 4H is to the south of Building 4G near the east parcel boundary (Photograph 6). The building was constructed between 2010 and 2012 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan (NETR 2010, 2012). It has a flat roof surrounded with a concrete cornice and is clad in stucco. The building also has three towers with clay-tile-clad hipped roofs—one near the center of the north façade, a second at the southwest corner, and a third at the southeast corner. A flat-roofed awning supported by stucco-clad columns is along the south façade. The main entrances are at the north and southwest towers. Both consist of paired fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. The windows are fixed metal sashes. Building 4I is to the east of Building 4F. It was constructed between 2012 and 2014 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan (NETR 2012, 2014). It has a flat roof with a concrete coping and is clad in composition panels and stucco. Three storefronts are on the north façade. All have a single fully-glazed metal door within metal storefront infill. The eastern storefront is topped by a flat awning. The windows are fixed metal sashes. Building 4J is at the southeast corner of the parcel. The building was constructed between 2012 and 2014 and is one story in height and rectangular in plan with a curved façade at the southeast corner (NETR 2012, 2014). It has a flat roof with a concrete coping and is clad in composition panels and stucco. The main entrance is at the curved southeast corner. It consists of paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. The windows are fixed metal sashes. Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center Site 5 is approximately 26 acres on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Plymouth Drive. Eleven commercial buildings constructed between 2000 and 2002 with elements of the New Traditional style are located on the site. The remainder is occupied by an asphalt-paved surface parking lot (NETR 2000, 2002). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 17 Photograph 7. View of Building 5A and 5B, looking southeast (Google Street View, June 2017). Building 5A is at the northeast corner of the site (Photograph 7). It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof topped by a concrete cornice and is clad in brick, stucco, composition siding, and permastone. Near the south end of the west façade is a projecting entry surround topped by a front gable roof. The main entrance is within an arched opening beneath the gable and consists of seven paired or single fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. To the north and south of the main entrance are flat-roofed arcades with columns clad in composition siding and permastone. Building 5B is to the south of Building 5A and shares a party wall (Photograph 7). It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof topped by a concrete cornice and is clad in brick, stucco, composition siding, and permastone. Near the south end of the west façade is a projecting entry surround topped by a hipped roof. The main entrance is within an arched opening beneath the hipped roof and consists of paired, fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. To the north and south of the main entrance are flat-roofed arcades with columns clad in stucco and permastone. Building 5C is to the south of Building 5B and shares a party wall. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof topped by a concrete cornice and is clad in brick, stucco, composition siding, and permastone. An arcade with a hipped roof is along the west façade and is flanked by towers, also with hipped roofs. Within the arcade are seven storefronts—all with paired fully-glazed doors and metal storefront infill. Building 5D is to the south of Building 5C and shares a party wall. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof topped by a concrete cornice and is clad in brick, stucco, composition siding, and permastone. At the center of the west façade is a projecting front gabled volume. Flanking the front gabled volume are projecting entry surrounds with arched openings and hipped roofs. Within the arched openings, the main entrances consist of paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. The windows are all fixed metal sashes. Building 5E is near the northwest corner of the site. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and a hipped tower at the southeast corner. The exterior is primarily clad in composition siding. The main entrance is on the south façade and consists of paired IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 18 fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. The windows are all fixed metal sashes. Metal awnings are on the south and east façades. Building 5F is to the south of Building 5E. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof with metal coping and is clad in composition siding, metal siding, and permastone. The main entrance is recessed at the southwest corner and consists of a single multi-light metal door. The windows are all fixed metal multi-light sashes. The southwest corner is ornamented by a stepped parapet. Photograph 8. View of Building 5G and 5H, looking east (Google Street View, January 2023). Building 5G is to the south of Building 5F (Photograph 8). It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and a hipped tower at the northeast corner. Two hipped bulkheads are also to the west near the north and south ends of the roof. The exterior is clad in composition siding, stucco, and permastone. Four storefronts are on the east façade. All have single or paired fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. Building 5H is to the south of Building 5G. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and two front gabled volumes—one at the northeast corner and the other at the southwest corner. The exterior is clad in stucco and composition siding. One storefront is along the east façade and a second storefront is on the west façade. The entrances are at the gabled volumes and consist of paired fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. The windows all consist of fixed metal sashes. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 19 Photograph 9. View of Building 5I and 5J, looking northwest (Google Street View, March 2019). Building 5I is to the south of Building 5H (Photograph 9). It is one story in height and irregular in plan. The building has a flat roof and is clad in stucco, composition siding, and permastone. An arcade with a hipped roof is located along the north, east, and south façades, and a hipped tower is at the southeast corner. Two storefronts are along the south and west façades with paired fully-glazed metal doors and metal storefront infill. Building 5J is to the south of Building 5H (Photograph 9). It is one story in height and irregular in plan. The building is similar in design to Building 5I except it has five storefronts instead of two. Building 5K is at the southwest corner of the site. It is one story in height and rectangular in plan. The building has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and a hipped projecting volume at the northwest corner. The exterior is clad in stucco, composition siding, and permastone. The main entrance is within the hipped volume and consists of paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. Site 6 – Seal Beach Plaza Site 6 is approximately seven acres at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Boulevard. Twelve commercial buildings are on the site surrounded by an asphalt-paved surface parking lot. Building 6A is at the southwest corner of the Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Andrews Drive intersection. It was built between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972). The building is one story in height and irregular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is primarily clad in stucco. A flat roofed arcade with permastone and stucco-clad columns extends across the south and east façades, and a tower topped by a flat awning is at the center of the south façade. The building has wood-frame storefront infill along the south and east façades. Entrances generally contain either fully-glazed metal doors or partially-glazed wood paneled doors. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 20 Photograph 10. View of Building 6B, looking southwest (Google Street View, January 2023). Building 6B is to the west of Building 6A (Photograph 10). It was constructed between 2000 and 2002 (NETR 2000, 2002). The building is one story in height and irregular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is primarily clad in stucco. Storefronts are along the east and south façades separated by concrete piers. All have metal storefront infill and single fully-glazed metal doors. Permastone-clad pilasters ornament each corner of the building. Building 6C is to the south of Building 6B. It was built between 1953 and 1963 (NETR 1953, 1963). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is primarily clad in stucco. A flat-roofed arcade extends along the north and east façades supported by columns with stucco or permastone cladding. Storefronts are within the arcade and consist of single fully- glazed entry doors and metal storefront infill. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 21 Photograph 11. View of Building 6D, looking west (Google Street View, January 2021). Building 6D is to the south of Building 6C and shares a party wall (Photograph 11). It was also built between 1953 and 1963 (NETR 1953, 1963). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with wide overhanging eaves and brackets along the roofline. The exterior is primarily clad in stucco. Three arched opening are on the east façade separated by permastone-clad piers. The main entrance is in the center opening and consists of fully-glazed sliding metal doors within metal storefront infill. The southern opening is partially infilled with fixed metal windows and an ATM, and the northern opening is infilled with stucco-clad panels. Metal storefront infill is along the south façade. Building 6E is to the south of Building 6D and separated by an alley. It was constructed between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is clad in stucco and brick. Two storefronts are on the east façade separated by a concrete pier. Each contains a single fully-glazed metal door and metal storefront infill. Fixed metal multi-light windows are on the north and south façades. Building 6F is to the south of Building 6E and separated by an alley with a permastone-and-wood archway at the entrance. Building 6F was constructed between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is clad in stucco and brick. Two storefronts are on the east façade separated by a concrete pier. Each contains a single or paired fully-glazed metal doors and metal storefront infill. Fixed metal multi-light windows are on the north facade. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 22 Photograph 12. View of Buildings 6E‒6G, looking west (Google Street View, January 2021). Building 6G is to the south of Building 6F and shares a party wall (Photograph 12). It was constructed between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof and is clad in stucco. At the east end is a tall parapet with a flat awning. The main entrance is recessed at the center of the east façade flanked by permastone-clad piers. It contains a single fully- glazed metal door. To either side of the main entrance are fixed metal windows above stucco-clad bulkheads. An awning tops the east façade’s storefront. Building 6H is to the south of Building 6G and shares a party wall. It was constructed between 1953 and 1963 (NETR 1953, 1963). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan with a flat roof and stucco exterior cladding. It has three volumes on the east façade—each with a different design and configuration—connected by a continuous arcade. The northernmost volume is topped with a concrete cornice. It has two storefronts with paired fully-glazed metal doors within metal storefront infill. The center volume is topped with a flat awning. It has two arched moldings separated by an arcade column clad in permastone. An entrance at the center contains a single fully-glazed metal door, which is flanked by metal storefront infill. The southernmost volume has a slopping concrete cornice and a tower at the south end topped with a flat roof. The tower has brackets along the roofline and a partially infilled, arched opening with a flat awning. An entrance at the center contains a single fully-glazed metal door. It is flanked by metal storefront infill. Building 6I is to the south of Building 6H and shares a party wall. It was built between 1953 and 1963 (NETR 1953, 1963). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan with a flat roof and concrete cornice. At the center of the east façade, a parapet taller than the adjacent roofline is topped with a flat awning. Flanking the parapet are two storefronts within an arcade that has arched openings and permastone-clad columns. The north storefront has paired fully-glazed metal doors, while the south storefront has paired fully-glazed sliding metal doors. The windows are fixed metal sashes. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 23 Building 6J is to the south of Building 6I and shares a party wall. It was built between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972). The building is one story in height and irregular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete coping. The main entrance on the east façade is topped with a cornice and flanked by permastone-clad columns. It contains deeply receded, paired fully-glazed metal doors with fixed metal windows to the south. Secondary entrances on the south façade are all single fully-glazed metal doors or metal slab doors. The windows are all fixed metal sashes. Building 6K is to the east of Buildings 6E and 6F. It was constructed between 2004 and 2005 (NETR 2004, 2005). The building is one story in height and rectangular in plan. It has a flat roof with a concrete cornice and is clad in stucco and permastone. Flat-roofed towers with concrete cornices are at the northeast corner and center of the south façade. The main entrance is at the tower on the south façade and contains paired fully-glazed metal doors. Metal storefront infill is along the east end of the building on the east, north, and south façades. Photograph 13. View of Building 6L, looking northwest (Google Street View, January 2023). Building 6L is to the south of Building 6I. It was constructed between 1963 and 1972 in the New Formalist style (NETR 1963, 1972) (Photograph 13). The building is one story in height and square in plan. It has a combination hipped and flat roof. The flat portion is at the center surrounded by a concrete parapet. The hipped portion borders the parapet and is clad in red clay tile. Arched openings separated by concrete piers are along all façades. Within select openings are entrances consisting of paired or single fully- glazed metal doors within metal infill. The remaining openings are infilled with fixed metal windows atop metal bulkheads. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 24 Site 7 – Seal Beach Center Photograph 14. View of Site 7, looking northeast (Google Street View, January 2023). Site 7 is approximately 9 acres on the north side of the Pacific Coast Highway between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue (Photograph 14). Three commercial buildings with elements of the New Traditional Mediterranean style are on the site surrounded by an asphalt-paved surface parking lot. Building 7A is on the east site boundary and Building 7B is on the west site boundary. Both were built in 1966 and are one story in height and irregular in plan (NETR 1963, 1972; The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1966a). The buildings have flat roofs and stucco cladding. Building 7A has two hipped towers and two front gable volumes on the west façade with red clay tile roof cladding. Storefronts on the west façade consist of metal storefront infill with paired fully-glazed metal doors. Building 7B has one hipped tower, two front gable volumes, three hipped volumes, and a hipped arcade along the west and north façades— all with red clay tile roof cladding. Storefronts along the west and north façades have metal storefront infill with single or paired fully-glazed metal doors. Building 8C is flanked by Building 7A and 7B and was built between 2005 and 2009 (NETR 2005, 2009). It is one story in height and irregular in plan. It has a flat roof with a hipped tower at the northeast corner and clay tile coping to the west and east. The exterior is clad in stucco. The main entrance is within the hipped tower and consists of paired fully-glazed metal doors. The windows are fixed metal sashes. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 25 Site 8 – 99 Marina Photograph 15. View of Site 8, looking southeast (Google Street View, September 2022). Site 8 is approximately 4.3 acres northeast of the Marina Drive and First Street intersection (Photograph 15). The parcel is primarily vacant except for a concrete handball court at the west end that was built between 1972 and 1988 (NETR 1972, 1988). The handball court is surrounded by a maintained lawn and mature trees. A small asphalt-paved surface parking lot is to the south. Main Street Specific Plan Area Photograph 16. View of Main Street, looking north (Google Street View, January 2023). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 26 The Main Street Specific Plan area is approximately 15 acres and encompasses commercial and mixed- use properties to the north and south of Main Street between Ocean Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway (Photograph 16). The properties along Main Street are generally one-to-two stories in height and are clad with a variety of materials including brick, stucco, wood siding, and permastone. Select properties appear to have been constructed in the early twentieth century and are visible on the earliest available Sanborn map from 1931 and aerial photograph from 1938 (Sanborn Map Company 1931; UCSB 1938). For the remaining properties, construction dates range from the post-World War II period through the 2000s. Photograph 17. View of the Orange County Fire Station 44, looking southwest (Google Street View, September 2022). The Main Street Specific Plan also encompasses a parcel on the southwest corner of 8th Street and Central Avenue. The parcel is occupied by the Orange County Fire Station 44, built between 1963 and 1972 (NETR 1963, 1972) (Photograph 17). The building has a front gable roof with a flat-roofed wing to the north and east. The exterior is clad in stucco. The main entrance is on the north façade and consists of a single fully-glazed metal door. The windows are fixed metal sashes. Three garage openings on the east façade have roll-up metal doors. 3.2 Archaeological and Ethnographic Contexts 3.2.1 PRECONTACT ARCHAEOLOGY The description of an overall regional chronology demarking the major stages of cultural evolution in the Southern California area has been attempted many times. Two principal chronologies, Wallace (1955; 1978) and Warren (1968), have been revised slightly (Koerper 1981; Koerper and Drover 1983). Southern IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 27 California cultural developments occur gradually and appear to have long-term stability; specifically applying a chronology is often difficult. The researchers cited above divided the regional precontact chronology into four stages describing changing artifact assemblages and evolving ecological adaptations. The principal regional chronology proposed by Wallace (1955; revised in 1978) divides the precontact era by major cultural changes within general time periods. Wallace defined four cultural horizons, or periods, for Southern California. These include the Early Period, the Millingstone Period, the Intermediate Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period. These periods are summarized below. The Early Period covers the period between approximately 10,000 and approximately 5500 BC, although recent data from the Farpoint Site (CA-LAN-451) in Malibu indicates a “Clovis Culture” occupation dating well before 10,000 years ago. Artifacts and cultural activities from Clovis and Early Period sites represent a predominantly hunting culture (Wallace 1955). Although Clovis and Early Period sites in Southern California are rare, Moratto (1984:76) lists several traits characteristic of sites occupied during this period. This list includes locations on the shorelines of ancient lakes and marshes. In coastal areas, such sites are located along stream channels or near estuaries. Although the bow and arrow do not exist, the atlatl and dart have been identified in assemblages from this period. An array of specialized cobble, core, flake, and blade implements are also known. In certain areas, the presence of extremely large, often fluted bifaces marks the Clovis and Early Period (Moratto 1984:81). The Early Period is followed in time by the Millingstone Period. Sites from the Millingstone Period (post- 5500 BC) typically contain ground stone artifacts such as manos, metates, and cogged stones, as well as soapstone objects. Wallace suggests that Millingstone Period cultures were generally hunter-gatherers who spent much time collecting and processing plants. When bifaces are found on Millingstone Period sites, they are commonly large and associated with the use of the atlatl. Drover et al. (1983) suggest that early Millingstone Period sites represent refuse from mobile hunters and gatherers who used coastal resources during the winter and inland resources throughout the remainder of the year. Subsistence strategies included intensive hunting of small and large land mammals, sea mammals, and birds, as well as near-shore fishing and shellfish collecting. Elsewhere, small mammals were hunted and seeds were collected, as documented by the many millingstones found at Millingstone Period sites throughout the Southern California region. By 3000 BC, coastal populations developed a greater reliance on marine resources. The remains of near- shore and deep-sea fish appear more often as refuse in middens. Much further inland, populations centered around pluvial lakes created by runoff from melting glaciers. In coastal areas, there was an increased use of the mortar and pestle, which marked a technological change in the manner seeds were processed. Instead of using just mano and metate, smaller seeds could be better contained in the basket- like mortar or hopper mortar (a basket affixed with asphaltum to a mortar base), and it is possible that the mortar and pestle indicate a diversification in seed collecting strategy. The use of the mortar and pestle marks Wallace’s Intermediate Period. Additional artifacts found predominantly within the Intermediate Period include discoidals and crescentics (crescent-shaped flaked stone artifacts). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 28 The Late Prehistoric Period began approximately AD 500 (Bean and Smith 1978). During this period, artifact changes and new cultural practices occur. Smaller projectile points, representing bow-and-arrow hunting, appear on Late Prehistoric Period sites. This period is also marked by steatite effigies and by cremation as an interment practice. These artifacts and practices have been linked to a proposed Shoshonean (Takic) immigration from the Great Basin that ended at the coast, although there is a difference of opinion among experts regarding the timing of this proposed Takic migration. By AD 1000, smoking pipes and ceramic pottery occur, although ceramic smoking pipes may occur somewhat earlier, within the later portion of the Intermediate Period. Dating of sites to the Late Prehistoric Period also depends on the occurrence of other items, such as artifacts made of Salton Sea (Obsidian Buttes) obsidian. Sites within the region occasionally contain the vitreous lithic (glassy stone) called Grimes Canyon fused shale, which originates from Ventura County (Demcak 1981; Hall 1988). 3.2.2 ETHNOGRAPHY Seal Beach is in the ancestral homeland of the Gabrielino (also known as Tongva). At the time of European contact, the Gabrielino inhabited the Los Angeles Basin and the southern Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino are descended from a Takic-speaking, Uto-Aztecan group that likely entered the Los Angeles Basin as recently as 1,500 years before present (BP) from the southern Great Basin or interior California deserts. However, it is also possible that they migrated in successive waves over a longer period beginning around 4,000 years BP. It has been proposed that Uto-Aztecan speakers displaced the local occupants of the southern coast (Kroeber 1925:578–580; Moratto 1984:165), represented by the Hokan-speaking Diegueño to the south and the Chumash to the north. Much of the review of the Gabrielino presented here is based on William McCawley’s book, The First Angelinos (1996). The Gabrielino lived in an area that covered more than 1,500 square miles and included the watersheds of the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Ana River, and Rio Hondo, as well as the southern Channel Islands. There were at least 50 residential communities or villages, each with 50 to 150 individuals. Each community consisted of one or more lineages associated with a permanent territory. Each territory was represented by a permanent central settlement with associated hunting, fishing, gathering, and ritual areas. A typical settlement would have had a variety of structures used for daily living, recreation, and rituals. In larger communities, the layout was more intricate. A ritualistic or sacred enclosure was surrounded by the residences of the chief and community leaders, which were in turn surrounded by the smaller homes of the rest of the community. Sweathouses, cemeteries, and clearings for dancing and playing were also common at larger settlements (McCawley 1996:32–33). Gabrielino subsistence consisted of terrestrial and marine resources. These included mule deer, pronghorn, rabbits, small rodents, freshwater and marine fish and shellfish, sea mammals, snakes, lizards, insects, quail, and mountain sheep. Botanical resources included native grass seeds, pine nuts, acorns, berries, and fresh greens and shoots. Food resources were managed by the chief, who oversaw food reserves, and families were known to store surplus resources to supplement their diet during times of resource stress. The Gabrielino were among the most materially wealthy groups in California due to a complex trade network between the Tongva and neighboring groups (McCawley 1996:141). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 29 Like many other Native American groups, the settlement of Europeans in California brought conflict and disease as the Spanish colonized the west coast, decimating the Native American population. Today, the Gabrielino continue their traditions in Southern California, with approximately 2,000 individuals. 3.3 History of Seal Beach, 1857‒2000 The coastal area that officially became Seal Beach in 1915 was known as Anaheim Landing during the mid- to late-nineteenth century. After the gold rush, the Anaheim Landing Company established Anaheim Landing in 1857 in a small bay at the mouth of Anaheim Creek. The landing served as a port for the Santa Ana Valley. Although the conditions at the port were often treacherous, it was active for approximately 15 years and rivaled the port of San Pedro in Los Angeles (Glasgow 2021; Kaiser 1995; The Port of Los Angeles 2024). Anaheim Landing’s decline began in 1875 when the railroad arrived in Anaheim and provided a more efficient means to ship goods from the coast to inland settlements. Around this time, the beaches around Anaheim Landing became a popular destination for tourists seeking respite from hot summer days in the valley (Glasgow 2021). A tent city, with 25-square-foot lots, grew near the former Anaheim Landing site. In 1901, J.C. Ord, the community’s only year-round resident, established a general store at the present-day location of Main Street and Electric Avenue (Kaiser 1995). In 1903, after successfully developing Huntington Beach (then known as Pacific City), Phillip A. Stanton used his capital to form the Bayside Land Company, and with J.C. Ord and Isaac Lothian, developed Bay City just north of the former Anaheim Landing site (Deneau and Marsh 1980). Stanton was the city’s major champion and heavily promoted Bay City. He ran an 18-month advertisement campaign in Long Beach and Los Angeles newspapers that depicted seals and encouraged readers to visit Seal Beach at Bay City to “Go and see the seals now. See 200 of them in the water at this famous beach!” (Grobaty 2013). The beach, however, was not famous; it was mostly unheard of (Grobaty 2013). Despite this, Bay City drew tourists and new residents alike, largely due to the Pacific Electric Railway Company, nicknamed the red car system, which arrived in Bay City in 1904. The red car system connected the burgeoning coastal community with Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Pasadena, and other major communities (Carpio 2015; Kindig 2011). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake impeded the development of Bay City—as builders and capital were drawn north to aid in recovery—and Stanton struggled to establish a community. To draw more interest to Bay City, Stanton constructed a long wooden pier at the end of Main Street, the longest pier in the state at that time (Deneau and Marsh 1980; Grobaty 2013). In spite of its slow development, Bay City was officially incorporated on October 25, 1915, with the new name of Seal Beach. This name was derived from the many seals that lazed on the city’s beach, and the name change was necessary as there was already an incorporated community named Bay City (City of Seal Beach 2024). Unlike nearby dry communities, Seal Beach was incorporated with legalized alcohol, and its availability was an early draw for visitors. Stanton constructed a seaside amusement park at the Seal Beach pier shortly after the city's incorporation. Coined Joy Zone, in 1917, the park featured a wooden roller coaster purchased from the city of San Francisco, an eatery and dance hall called the Jewel Café, and carnival games (Carpio 2015; Waldie 2015). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 30 While Joy Zone drew fun-seekers to Seal Beach, the city’s major appeal during the 1920s was vice. Seal Beach had readily available bootleg liquor during the prohibition era, reportedly thanks to an underground canal that facilitated its secretive transport. The city quickly gained a reputation for drinking, gambling, and prostitution (Carpio 2015). Gambling venues and speakeasies dotted Main Street, and gambling ships were anchored three miles off the coast, past federal jurisdiction. A shuttle at the end of the Seal Beach pier transported visitors to and from the ships. This illegal activity was allowed to flourish in the city as it had little law enforcement presence; it was at the westernmost corner of Orange County, and county law enforcement avoided the long trip (Carpio 2015; Waldie 2015). Despite its lawless reputation, Seal Beach grew as a residential community during the 1920s. Between 1920 and 1930, the city’s population swelled from 669 to 1,156, and by 1931, various businesses lined Main Street, and scattered dwellings dotted the remaining streets (California State Census Data Center 2020; Sanborn Map Company 1931). Businesses on Main Street (Site 13) included restaurants, a billiard hall, beauty shops, a tailor, the city post office, grocers, drug stores, a hotel, and an automotive repair store. A church, St. Anne’s, was one block east of Main Street, and the City Hall, constructed in 1929 (extant and listed in the National Register in 1983), was at the corner of Central Avenue and 8th Street (Sanborn Map Company 1931; Thomas 1983). Seal Beach’s growth can be attributed to the city’s tourism, the red car service that provided easy transportation between it and major cities, and the development of the Pacific Coast Highway and a local airport during the 1920s (Masters 2012; Sun Newspapers 2010). Initially, the airport was known as Crawford Field, named after a Mr. Crawford, who built gliders there. By the 1930s, it was known as the Seal Beach airport (Sun Newspapers 2010). During the 1930s, the development of Seal Beach stalled. The area remained a popular location for drinking and gambling, particularly among sailors stationed in Long Beach, but the Great Depression led to the closure of Joy Zone (Carpio 2015; Kaiser 1995). Its amenities, including the roller coaster and Jewel Café, fell into disrepair and were eventually dismantled (Kaiser 1995). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake also impacted the community. The 6.4 magnitude quake, the largest known earthquake to occur in the Los Angeles region at that time, struck on the evening of March 10th and damaged or destroyed many of the buildings in Seal Beach (Carpio 2015; Earthquake Hazards Program 2023). In 1939, the gambling ships off Seal Beach’s coast were shut down (Waldie 2015). Collectively, the Depression, the 1933 earthquake, and the closure of offshore gambling establishments held the city’s development at bay, and it retained its sin city characterization. Over the decade, Seal Beach’s permanent resident population grew by only 397 (California State Census Data Center 2020). World War II began a period of significant physical and social change in Seal Beach. In 1944, a Naval Ammunition and Net Depot was commissioned at Seal Beach, occupying a 5,000-acre site just southwest of the city’s core (Reece 1944). The Navy had been attempting to establish an ammunitions storage base on the Pacific Coast since 1925 and selected Seal Beach for two reasons: its large expanse of open land and its proximity to Navy fleet concentrations in San Diego and Long Beach. Plans for the depot included the construction of 65 buildings, heavy barricades, powder and explosive magazines, 35 miles of paved roads, and 50 miles of railroads. The depot served as the central location for storing and loading ammunition onto Pacific Fleet ships and for servicing the anti-submarine nets used to protect fleet anchorages and bases worldwide (Navy Region Southwest 2024b; Reece 1944). The construction of the Naval Depot necessitated the dismantlement of the Seal Beach Airport; its administration building was IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 31 moved to its historic core, Old Town (Sun Newspapers 2010). The prior airport location was used as a storage area for anti-submarine buoys during World War II until the mid-1960s. The highly stacked lines of buoys were a landmark for those travelling on the Pacific Coast Highway and Bay Boulevard (present- day Seal Beach Boulevard) (Dobkins 2019b). The influx of new residents during the war, chiefly from the Navy Depot’s workforce, resulted in a 129 percent increase in Seal Beach’s population between 1940 and 1950 (California State Census Data Center 2020). This growing population sought to dispel the city’s long-held ill reputation and create a more family-oriented community. A group of citizens formed the Good Government Group and worked to “run off the bad elements of the city,” namely, gambling institutions (Kaiser 1995). The group’s largest target was The Airport Club, a 24-hour gambling and poker club that generated an estimated million dollars in revenue annually. In 1952, city residents narrowly voted to revoke an ordinance that allowed the club to operate. The following year, after numerous elections and recalls, Seal Beach residents voted 848 to 811 to ban gambling in the city entirely (Dobkins 2019a; Kaiser 1995). Along with eliminating gambling, a series of residential and commercial developments in the post-World War II period began the transformation of Seal Beach from a city known as “wild” to a middle-class seaside community (Carpio 2015). During the 1960s and 1970s, the city expanded from Old Town historic core to include Leisure World Seal Beach and the Marina Hill (also known as the Hill), College Park West, and College Park East subdivisions (Kaiser 1995). Ross Cortese, a successful developer in Downey and Anaheim, established Leisure World Seal Beach, which would come to represent a third of Seal Beach’s population. Before Leisure World, Cortese developed the Rossmoor Subdivision in 1957, adjacent to the northwest corner of the Naval Ammunition and Net Depot and just beyond the boundaries of Seal Beach. Rossmoor, with 3,500 homes, was the largest development in Orange County and included schools, a medical complex, and shopping centers (Kendrick 2004). One of the shopping centers, the Rossmoor Business Center (present-day The Shops at Rossmoor, Site 5), cost $8 Million to construct and included major stores such as an S.H. Kress and a Food Giant Market (The Daily News 1959; The Los Angeles Times 1961). In 1965, the Rossmoor Business Center and adjacent vacant land were annexed by Seal Beach despite strong opposition from the Rossmoor Homeowners Association (Kendrick 2004). Although outside of the boundaries of Seal Beach, Rossmoor laid the groundwork for Cortese’s success at Leisure World. After Rossmoor, Cortese sought another site to develop a community with amenities and settled on a 541-acre site in Rancho Los Alamitos, immediately south of Rossmoor. After purchasing the land for $10.82 million, Cortese designed a retirement community composed of clustered apartment buildings designed specifically for residents 52 years and older. Using research he had funded through the Gerontology program at the University of Southern California, Cortese considered the unique environment, social and recreational activities, and health and medical requirements of the aging. The proposed one- and two-bedroom apartment units contained wide hallways, raised electrical outlets, grab bars, and other amenities for aging in place (Baker 2009; Seal Beach Leisure World Historical Society & Museum 2021). Cortese took his unique planned community to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), seeking their backing on mortgages. To secure FHA mortgages for Leisure World, Cortese had to establish two separate non-profit companies – the Golden Rain Foundation of Laguna Hills to sponsor, merchandise, administer, and manage Leisure World, and the Leisure World Foundation to own or act as IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 32 trustee of the assets of Leisure World – and agree to annex the development to Seal Beach (Baker 2009; Leisure World Seal Beach 2024). In 1962, the first residents of Leisure World Seal Beach moved in, and by 1964, all original 6,608 planned units had been purchased. Like Rossmoor, Leisure World included an array of amenities and conveniences. It featured a manned security gate and on-site medical services with a pharmacy, laboratory, 26 nurses, and 10 physicians; when using on-site medical care, the Golden Rain Foundation covered a portion of resident’s costs. Leisure World also touted a 2,500-seat amphitheater, art and ceramic studios, pool and billiards rooms, woodworking shops, clubhouses, separate therapy pools and swimming pools, and a variety of yard games. It featured a shopping center, the Leisure World Shopping Center (present-day Seal Beach Plaza, Site 7) that housed a Golden Rain Foundation office, pediatrist and optometrist offices, a United California Bank, and a 15,000-square-foot Manning’s Restaurant with a cafeteria, coffee shop, and bar (Rossmoor Home 2024; The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1963, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c). Later, in the 1980s, the Golden Rain Foundation purchased a 5.5- acre lot adjacent to Leisure World Seal Beach to use for storing and servicing recreational vehicles and other non-conforming vehicles that belonged to residents (Site 2) (Seal Beach Leisure World Historical Society & Museum 2021). In 1966, another large development was constructed next to Rossmoor. This development was the Old Ranch Country Club, located immediately west of Rossmoor between it and the College Park Subdivision, which was developed simultaneously (Long Beach Real Estate 2024). Preston B. Hotchkis, the president of the Bixby Ranch Company, developed the Old Ranch Country Club (Site 10). Plans for the 125-acre, 18-hole golf course designed by noted golf course architect Theodore Robinson included 6,400 yards of fairways, newly planted trees, and six lakes. The 2,800-square-foot country club was constructed of rough-sawn cedar to reflect early California heritage, an homage to Rancho Los Alamitos (Independent 1966; Ives 1967). When the club officially opened in March of 1967, its maximum private membership, 450, was filled (Ives 1967). During the 1960s and 1970s, as the previously undeveloped portions of Seal Beach were platted and neighborhoods emerged, Old Town remained downtrodden in comparison. Storefronts were often boarded, and dive bars were still clustered near the pier (Kaiser 1995; Waldie 2015). The western portion of Old Town, adjacent to the San Gabriel River, was mostly industrial in the 1960s and included a sewage disposal plant and oil separating facility (NETR 1967). However, Old Town and its immediately adjacent neighborhood, the Hill, were not void of development. In 1966, the Seal Beach Shopping Center (Site 8) was constructed across the Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street in the Hill neighborhood. The plaza’s opening in July 1966 was celebrated with three days of festivities, featuring a ribbon-cutting, live music, a play, and an appearance by Nino the Clown. The center had 23 stores, including an art supply store, a women’s apparel store, a dry cleaner, and a Tastee-Freez ice cream shop (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1966a). Later that year, in December, a Volger’s Bay Liquor Market (Site 1) opened on the corner of the Pacific Coast Highway and Bay Boulevard (present-day Seal Beach Boulevard) in Old Town. The store advertised its beers from around the world and its “complete gourmet foods” (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1966b). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 3 Environmental and Cultural Settings Project Number: 2042665000 33 Seal Beach also made several civic improvements during the 1960s. Approximately 55 percent of Seal Beach’s potable water system was installed during the decade. The system included two booster pump stations integral to maintaining the city’s water pressure: one constructed in 1963 on city property bounded by Naval-owned land (Site 12), and one constructed in 1969 adjacent to the northeast corner of Leisure World (AKM Consulting Engineers 2012). A new fire station (Site 13) was built in Old Town (ca. 1967), on the corner of Central Avenue and Eighth Street, across from the historic City Hall (NETR 1967). Two years later, Seal Beach replaced its original City Hall with a newer, larger building; however, the city retained the original City Hall and the two buildings are connected (Thomas 1983). The Naval Ammunition and Net Depot at Seal Beach also experienced significant change during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1962, the depot was renamed the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station to reflect a new emphasis on missiles and weapons systems at the site (Anaheim Bulletin 1962). Under this new direction, the station evolved into the “Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading, and maintenance installation” (Navy Region Southwest 2024b). In 1969, a 920-acre salt marsh and upland habitat within the naval station was declared a Navy Preserve and recognized as one of the last remaining undeveloped areas in coastal southern California. In 1972, President Richard Nixon formally established the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, which is currently managed jointly by the Department of the Navy and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Navy Region Southwest 2024a). The numerous residential, commercial, and civic developments in Seal Beach between 1960 and 1970 resulted in a dramatic population change. By 1970, the population reached 24,441, a 250 percent increase (California State Census Data Center 2020). Thirty-seven percent, approximately 9,000 individuals, resided in Leisure World Seal Beach (Baker 2009). The city’s population has changed little since 1970, with just 801 more residents as of 2010 (California State Census Data Center 2020). Despite this stagnant population, Seal Beach continued progressing through the modern era. The city evolved into a center for aerospace technology during the 1970s, thanks to a Rockwell International Space Division Facility adjacent to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. In 1977, Rockwell International built and demonstrated the first functioning Global Positioning Satellite, also known as Navstar GPS. The Rockwell facility in Seal Beach produced Navstars and rockets (Pazeian and Young 2018; Rockwell International 1975). Today, the former Rockwell Space Division Facility is owned by Boeing (Pazeian and Young 2018). As Seal Beach approached the twenty-first century, the city had become a densely developed community; the only evident open natural space was the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. One of the city's last pieces of open land, harkening to the earliest days of Seal Beach's settlement, was developed in 1998 as the Old Ranch Town Center (Site 6), a shopping plaza north of the Old Ranch Country Club. The 25-acre parcel represented one of the last portions of land owned by the Bixby Ranch Company, which was founded in 1896 and had owned considerable land in Seal Beach since (Bixby Land Company 2024; The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1998). Residents of College Park East overwhelmingly opposed the sale, and it was lamented in the local newspaper with the headline “It’s Over!—Bixby's Holdings are Zoned” (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1998). IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 4 Research and Methods Project Number: 2042665000 34 4 Research and Methods 4.1 CHRIS Records Search A records search of the CHRIS was completed by Stantec at the SCCIC on January 25, February 1, and February 8, 2024. The purpose of this search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area and vicinity, including those that are listed in national, state, or local historical registers and whether or not the Project area contained resources that have been previously identified or evaluated as potential historical resources for purposes of CEQA. All recorded historic and precontact cultural resources situated within a 0.25-mile radius of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area were reviewed. Sources consulted during the search include: • NRHP, • CRHR, • California Inventory of Historic Resources (CHRI), • California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, • California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and • California OHP records, including California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) cultural resource records. Three previously recorded cultural resources are within the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area, all of which consist of precontact Native American resources in the vicinity of the San Gabriel River. These cultural resources are listed in Table 3 and are described below. Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in Project Area Primary Number Description CRHR/NRHP Status 30-000143 Precontact habitation site with midden, artifacts, and human remains Not Evaluated 30-000264 Precontact site with shell, ground stone, and human remains Not Evaluated 30-001546 Precontact shell deposit Not Evaluated 4.1.1 P-30-000143 (CA-ORA-143) This precontact archaeological site was originally recorded in 1964. At that time, P-30-000143 was described as “midden dirt” with a steatite bowl and effigy; flaked stone debris, including obsidian, chert, basalt, and quartz; projectile points; drills; ground stone, including manos, metates, and mortars; and shellfish. A record prepared the following year in 1965 also noted the presence of human remains. The most current record of P-30-000143, prepared in 1997, described the deposit as “archaeological shell IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 4 Research and Methods Project Number: 2042665000 35 midden consisting of…dense accumulations of marine mollusk shell, including scallop, clam and oyster. Artifacts such as lithic debitage are rare, but present, and there is an occasional piece of fish bone.” The 1997 site record noted previous disturbances from construction. A formal determination of this resource’s CRHR/NRHP eligibility has not been made. 4.1.2 P-30-000264 (CA-ORA-264) This precontact archaeological site was recorded in 1969 as containing dietary shell, ground stone, and human skeletal remains. A formal determination of this resource’s CRHR/NRHP eligibility has not been made. 4.1.3 P-30-001546 This precontact archaeological site was recorded in 2000 as a “small prehistoric shell deposit” that possibly functioned as a base camp for collecting, processing, and consuming estuarine resources. The site was observed in a plowed field adjacent to a developed area. A formal determination of this resource’s CRHR/NRHP eligibility has not been made. 4.2 California Built Environment Resource Directory Stantec consulted the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) to determine if the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program contains any resources listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP or CRHR, designated as California Registered Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest, or evaluated in historic resource surveys and other planning activities. One resource listed in the BERD is within the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program and two resources are immediately adjacent. Of the three resources previously recorded in BERD, the Naval Weapons Station was previously determined eligible for the NRHP and is a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Table 4. Previously Recorded BERD Resources Name Address OHP Status Code(s) Within Housing Opportunity Site/Main Street Program? Seal Beach Red Car Electric Avenue 7P No—adjacent Naval Weapons Station 800 Seal Beach Blvd 2S2 No—adjacent Seal Beach Plaza 13962 Seal Beach Blvd 6Y Yes 4.3 City of Seal Beach Historic Resources Stantec consulted with the City of Seal Beach to determine if the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program contains any locally designated resources. One resource within the Main Street Program, the Bay Theater, is designated as a City historic resource under Resolution No. 6685. The Bay Theater is a historical resource as defined by CEQA. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 4 Research and Methods Project Number: 2042665000 36 Table 5. City Historic Resources Name Address OHP Status Code(s) Within Housing Opportunity Site/Main Street Program? Bay Theater 340 Main Street 5S1 Yes 4.4 NAHC Sacred Lands File and Tribal Outreach On January 18, 2024, Stantec contacted the NAHC in West Sacramento to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the Project area. The NAHC is the state’s official repository of sacred lands, sites, and resources recognized by California Native American tribes. Andrew Green, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded via email to Stantec’s search request on February 14, 2024, that a review of the SLF was “positive” and recommended that the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes be contacted for further information. The NAHC provided Stantec with a list of local tribes that may have additional information regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project and vicinity. The Project is subject to tribal consultation requirements under CEQA (i.e., AB 52), and the City is in the process of notifying local tribes of their opportunity to participate in government-to-government consultation regarding the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The results of this outreach and consultation are ongoing and will be described in the Project’s EIR. Mitigation measures will be proposed in that document, as appropriate. 4.5 Additional Research Stantec conducted additional research on the history of the Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program and the surrounding region. Sources included previous cultural survey reports, historic-period newspapers, U.S. Federal Decennial Population Census records, and secondary online reference materials. Historical maps and aerial images from the Sanborn Map Company, Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR), U.S. Geological Services (USGS), and University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) were also consulted. These included: • 1931 Sanborn map • 1938 UCSB aerial photograph • 1947 UCSB aerial photograph • 1952 NETR aerial photograph • 1953 NETR aerial photograph • 1963 NETR aerial photograph • 1997 NETR aerial photograph • 1998 NETR aerial photograph • 1999 NETR aerial photograph • 2000 NETR aerial photograph • 2002 NETR aerial photograph • 2003 NETR aerial photograph I I I I I IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 4 Research and Methods Project Number: 2042665000 37 • 1967 USGS topographic map • 1972 NETR aerial photograph • 1988 NETR aerial photograph • 1991 NETR aerial photograph • 1992 NETR aerial photograph • 1993 NETR aerial photograph • 1994 NETR aerial photograph • 1995 NETR aerial photograph • 1996 NETR aerial photograph • 2004 NETR aerial photograph • 2005 NETR aerial photograph • 2009 NETR aerial photograph • 2010 NETR aerial photograph • 2012 NETR aerial photograph • 2014 NETR aerial photograph • 2016 NETR aerial photograph • 2019 NETR aerial photograph • 2020 NETR aerial photograph IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 5 Analysis of Project Impacts on Cultural Resources Project Number: 2042665000 38 5 Analysis of Project Impacts on Cultural Resources 5.1 Impacts to Built-Environment Historical Resources The threshold for determining significant impacts to historical resources in the CEQA Guidelines is whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change, which is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate vicinity such that the historical resource is materially impaired. A historical resource would be materially impaired if a project alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and/or local register (14 CCR §15064.5[b][2]). CEQA defines historical resources as (1) resources eligible for or listed in the CRHR and/or NRHP; (2) resources listed in a local register; or (3) resources identified as historically significant in a historic resources survey. Historical resources are also typically at least 50 years old because of NPS and OHP minimum-age requirements for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. Therefore, buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that meet this age threshold and have not been previously evaluated generally have the potential to be identified as historical resources unless a detailed evaluation is prepared demonstrating that it is not eligible for national, state, and/or local listing. For the purposes of evaluating a resource’s eligibility as a historical resource, a minimum-age threshold of 45 years is commonly recommended to account for the delay between resource identification and a CEQA lead agency’s approval of a project. One historical resource, the Bay Theater, is within the Main Street Program area. One historical resource, the Naval Weapons Station, is located adjacent to Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, and 6. In addition, previously unidentified resources 45 years old or older have the potential to be historical resources as defined by CEQA due to their age. Sixteen buildings are potentially 45 years old or older on Housing Opportunity Sites 1–2, 4, and 6–8. An unknown number of buildings within the Main Street Program are 45 years old or older. The Project would have no direct impacts on historical resources. It involves the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of sites within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. This action would not directly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources due to demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. The Project would potentially have indirect impacts on historical resources as it may facilitate future development activities that would directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources. Two identified historical resources are within or adjacent to the Project area, as well as an unknown number of previously unevaluated resources 45 years old or older that have the potential to be historical resources. It is possible that future development activities may demolish or significantly alter these known and unknown historical resources or introduce a new visual element that alters a resource’s setting. As such, indirect impacts to historical resources would be potentially significant. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 5 Analysis of Project Impacts on Cultural Resources Project Number: 2042665000 39 Implementation of Mitigation Measure A, discussed below, would reduce impacts to historical resources. This would be accomplished by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. Therefore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure A, the Project impacts would be less than significant. The Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact historical resources. Unlike direct and indirect impacts, which tend to be site-specific, cumulative impacts would occur if the Project and related projects cumulatively affect historical resources. Potential cumulative impacts include impacts to historical resources in the immediate vicinity; changes within the same historic district or to the same historical resource; or involve resources that are examples of the same property type as those within the Project area. However, unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to historical resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on historical resources would be less than significant. To mitigate significant impacts to historical resources, the following Mitigation Measures are recommended: A. Development Review Process for Historical Resources Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER should involve a CHRIS and BERD records search and preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not been previously identified as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for NRHP, CRHR, and local landmark eligibility per NPS, OHP, and City guidelines. All evaluated resources should be documented on DPR 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 5 Analysis of Project Impacts on Cultural Resources Project Number: 2042665000 40 5.2 Impacts to Archaeological Resources CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource, then the lead agency determines if it meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083.2(g). In practice, however, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource. Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.2. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). As discussed in Section 4.1 of this report, three archaeological cultural resources have been identified at, or in the vicinity of, one of the Housing Opportunity Sites: P-30-000143, P-30-000264, and P-30-001546. The status of these three archaeological cultural resources is unknown at this time, including their integrity (i.e., whether these sites contain intact subsurface archaeological deposits) and their eligibility for listing in either the CRHR or NRHP. At least two of these sites have reported Native American human remains, and regardless of these sites’ statuses as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA, the presence of such remains triggers protections under sections of the California PRC and HSC, as described in Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of this report. Additionally, other precontact and historic-period archaeological cultural resources have been identified in Seal Beach, and the potential to unearth buried archaeological deposits during development cannot be ruled out and should be assessed on a project and site-specific basis. The Project, therefore, may have direct impacts on known archaeological cultural resources (including those that qualify as “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources” under CEQA) as well as previously unrecorded cultural resources that could be unearthed during ground disturbance. Future development facilitated by the proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change to archaeological cultural resources due to their demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. As such, impacts to archaeological cultural resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B–C discussed below would reduce the significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources, specifically those that qualify as historical resources and unique archaeological resources under CEQA. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact archaeological cultural resources and human remains. Development within the City also has the potential to adversely affect archaeological cultural resources and human remains through their destruction or disturbance. Before mitigation, development within the Housing Opportunity Sites, as well as other local recent and current developments, have the potential to IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 5 Analysis of Project Impacts on Cultural Resources Project Number: 2042665000 41 cause adverse cumulative impacts to archaeological cultural resources due to their destruction or loss of historical integrity. However, unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential archaeological impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to archaeological resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources. Additional study of this future development is recommended to fully assess future project impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. To mitigate significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources, specifically those that qualify as historical resources and unique archaeological resources under CEQA, the following mitigation measures are recommended: B. Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The cultural resources professional shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to historical resources and unique archaeological resources to less than significant. C. Human Remains The City shall use the development review process to identify human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then: (1) the coroner would contact the NAHC within 24 hours; (2) the NAHC would identify the person or persons it believes IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 6 Conclusions Project Number: 2042665000 42 to be the MLD from the deceased Native American; (3) the MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Implementation of this mitigation measure would likely reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains to less than significant. 6 Conclusions The Project has the potential to have direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts on built-environment historical resources and archaeological cultural resources. Project impacts to built-environment historical resources may be potentially significant. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures discussed in this report by the lead agency would reduce the impact to built-environment historical resources to a less than significant level. The Project impacts to built-environment historical resources would therefore be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. Project impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains may also be potentially significant, and mitigation is proposed to reduce this impact to less than significant. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 43 7 References AKM Consulting Engineers 2012 City of Seal Beach Water Master Plan Update. City of Seal Beach. July. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Water%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20Jul y%202012.pdf. Anaheim Bulletin 1962 "Naval Base Name Change Announced," September 21, B7. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/967485851/?terms=%22naval%20weapons%20station%20s eal%20beach%22&match=1. Andrus, Patrick and Rebecca Shrimpton Undated “National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. Baker, Terry 2009 The History of Leisure World 1963 - 1975. The Historian, Volume 3, No. 4. https://lagunawoodshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_07_Journal.pdf. Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In R. Heizer ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, pp. 538–549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bixby Land Company 2024 The Legacy and Tradition of Bixby Land Company. https://www.bixbyland.com/history/. California Office of Historic Preservation Undated “California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources.” https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1056/files/07_TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate%20A%20 Property%20to%20California%20Register.pdf. California State Census Data Center 2020 Historical Census Populations: 1850-2020; California, Counties, and Incorporated Cities/Towns. Demographic Research Unit, Department of Finance. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwp- content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FReports%2FDemographic_Reports%2Fdocuments%2 F2020-1850_STCO_IncCities.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Carpio, Anthony Clark 2015 "California Retrospective: Seal Beach, Marking its Centennial, Was Once a Wild Place." Los Angeles Times, May 25. https://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-seal-beach- retrospective-20150526-story.html. City of Seal Beach 2024 About The City of Seal Beach. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/About. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 44 Daily News 1959 "Knight's Ex-Partner Joins County Firm," March 19, 15. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/696361170/?terms=%22rossmoor%20business%20center% 22&match=1. Demcak, Carol R. 1981 Fused Shale as Time Marker in Southern California: Review and Hypothesis. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. Deneau, Andrew L., and Diann Marsh 1980 Phillip Ackley Stanton House, Anaheim, Orange County. California Office of Historic Preservation. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/5f5030a0-ef7b-4620-92a3-edaa4e644f60. Dobkins, Michael 2019a April 14th in Seal Beach History. This Date in Seal Beach History. Blog. https://sbfoundersday.wordpress.com/2019/04/14/tdisbh104/. 2019b March 7th in Seal Beach History. This Date in Seal Beach History. Blog. https://sbfoundersday.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/tdisbh066/#:~:text=The%20buoys%20had%20 once%20been,buoys%20were%20ultimately%20declared%20obsolete. Drover, Christopher E., Henry C. Koerper, and Paul E. Langenwalter III 1983 Early Holocene Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19 (3&4):1–84. Earthquake Hazards Program 2023 M6.4 March 10, 1933, Long Beach, California Earthquake. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/m64-march-10-1933-long-beach- california- earthquake#:~:text=The%201933%20Long%20Beach%20earthquake,heavy%20machinery%20i nto%20the%20air. Glasgow, Lindsey 2021 Fast Facts: Anaheim Landing: From Port to Housing to Naval Base. The Log: California's Boating & Fishing News. https://www.thelog.com/local/fast-facts-anaheim-landing-from-port-to- housing-to-naval-base/. Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1963 "Golden Rain Foundation Moves to New Quarters," November 20, 1. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/846354267/?terms=%22leisure%20world%20shopping%20c enter%22&match=1. 1964a "Foot Doctor Starts Part-Time Service," January 15, 2. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/846354355/?terms=%22leisure%20world%20shopping%20c enter%22&match=1. 1964b "Mannnig's Reveals Plans for Cafeteria, Coffee Shop, Cocktails," January 29, 1. Newspapers.com. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 45 https://www.newspapers.com/image/846354373/?terms=%22leisure%20world%20shopping%20c enter%22&match=1. 1964c "United California Bank Will Add 3200 Square Feet," January 29, 1. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/846354373/?terms=%22leisure%20world%20shopping%20c enter%22&match=1. 1966a "Grand Opening Festivities Set for Shopping Center," July 21, 9. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/835796140/?terms=%22seal%20beach%20center%22&mat ch=1. 1966b "Volger's Bay Liquor Market Now Open!," December 8, 9. Newspapers.com. Advertisement. https://www.newspapers.com/image/835798511/?terms=%22bay%20liquor%22%20%22pacific% 20hwy%22&match=1. 1998 "Its Over! — Bixby's Holdings are Zoned " November 26, 1, 10. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/836221926/. Grobaty, Tim 2013 "Seal Beach: Seals Brought a New Name to Bay City 100 Years Ago." Press-Telegram, July 15. https://www.presstelegram.com/2013/07/15/seal-beach-seals-brought-a-new-name-to- bay-city-100-years-ago/. Hall, Matt C. 1988 “For the Record: Notes and Comments on ‘Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County.’” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(4):34–48. Independent 1966 "Old Ranch Golf Links Projected," August 11, 31. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/720230914/?terms=%22old%20ranch%20country%20club% 22&match=1. Ives, Doug 1967 "Clubhouse Unique at Old Ranch." Independent, March 2, D5. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/720252776/?terms=%22old%20ranch%20country%20club% 22&match=1. Kaiser, Dennis 1995 "Seal Beach History." Sun Newspaper, October 26. Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce. https://sealbeachchamber.org/history/. Kendrick, Margaret 2004 Rossmoor History. Our Rossmoor. https://ourrossmoor.com/history/. Kindig, Michael 2011 Pacific Electric Car. The Historical Marker Database. https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=49989. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 46 Koerper, Henry C. 1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover 1983 “Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19 (2):1–34. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington D.C. Leisure World Seal Beach, CA 2024 History. https://www.lwsb.com/welcome/history/. Long Beach Real Estate 2024 College Park East - Neighborhood Description. https://lbre.com/neighborhoods/seal- beach-los-alamitos/college-park-east/college-park-east-neighborhood-description/. Los Angeles Times 1961 "Center Starts 2nd Store Unit," April 30, 4. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/385651021/?terms=%22rossmoor%20business%20center% 22&match=1. Masters, Nathan 2012 From Roosevelt Highway to the 1: A Brief History of Pacific Coast Highway. PBS SoCal. https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-la/from-roosevelt-highway-to-the-1-a-brief-history-of-pacific- coast-highway. McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press, Banning and Novato, California. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego. Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) 1952 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1953 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1963 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1967 Orange County. Topographic Map. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1972 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1988 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 47 1996 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 1997 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2000 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2002 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2003 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2004 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2005 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2009 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2010 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2012 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. 2014 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Navy Region Southwest 2024a National Wildlife Refuge. https://cnrsw.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/WPNSTA-Seal- Beach/Operations-and-Management/Environmental-Program/National-Wildlife-Refuge/. 2024b Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. https://cnrsw.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/WPNSTA- Seal-Beach/About/Installation-Guide/Installation-Locations/Seal-Beach/. Pazeian, Michael, and David N. Young 2018 "Aerospace Technology that Changed the World Had Origins in Seal Beach." Sun Newspapers, October 26. https://www.sunnews.org/aerospace-technology-that-changed-the- world-had-origins-in-seal-beach/. Reece, Ruth 1944 "Naval officer Speaker at Soroptimist Meeting." The Long Beach Sun, December 9, 6. Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/721889205/?terms=%22naval%20ammunition%20and%20n et%20depot%20seal%20beach%22%20%22acre%22&match=1. Rockwell International 1975 "Rockwell International Space Division." Rockwell International. Periscope Film LLC. https://stock.periscopefilm.com/68804-rockwell-international-space-division-1975-promo-film- space-shuttle-apollo-soyuz-project/. Rossmoor Home 2024 Leisure World Map. Rossmoor Home. https://rossmoorhome.com/leisure-world-map/. Sanborn Map Company 1931 Seal Beach, Orange Co., Cal. February Sanborn Map. . IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 48 Seal Beach Leisure World Historical Society & Museum 2021 Timeline. Seal Beach Leisure World Historical Society & Museum. https://sealbeachleisureworldhistory.org/timeline.html. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2021 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121. pdf?1646938785. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2024 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. City of Seal Beach. Sun Newspapers 2010 "History of the Seal Beach Airport (A.K.A. Crawford Field)," August 8. https://www.sunnews.org/history-of-the-seal-beach-airport-a-k-a-crawford-field/. The Port of Los Angeles 2024 Los Angeles Harbor Communities. https://www.portoflosangeles.org/about/history/los- angeles-harbor- communities#:~:text=The%20beginnings%20of%20San%20Pedro,the%20Lelia%20Byrd%20in% 201805. Thomas, Harold 1983 Old Seal Beach City Hall, Seal Beach, Orange County. California Office of Historic Preservation. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/dc922060-e989-42a5-ad4d-6e589ce188a3. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) 1938 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1947 Seal Beach. Aerial Photograph. UCSB Library Geospatial Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Waldie, D.J. 2015 Seal Beach: A Centennial. PBS SoCAL. https://www.pbssocal.org/history-society/seal- beach-a-centennial. Wallace, William J. 1955 “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11 (3). Reprinted in The California Indians: A Source Book, edited by R. Heizer and M. Whipple, pp 186–201. University of California Press, Berkeley. Second edition, 1971. 1978 “Post Pleistocene Archaeology 9000–2000 B.C.” In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp 25– 36. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, W. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. IJ Cultural Resources Assessment Report 7 References Project Number: 2042665000 49 Warren, Claude N. 1968 “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology, 1 (3):1–4. IJ Appendix E Paleontological Resources Technical Report PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA An analysis of existing data in support of CEQA review October 25, 2024 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Principal Paleontologist and Ceara Purcell, M.S. Paleontologist Stantec Project Number: 2042665000 () Stantec Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 The conclusions in the Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk. Stantec has assumed all information received from the Client and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein. This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client. While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at Stantec’s discretion. Prepared by: Signature Ceara Purcell, M.S. Printed Name Reviewed by: Signature Matthew Cline, M.S. Printed Name Approved by: Signature Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Printed Name IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 ii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... III ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. V GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................. VI 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................ 2 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 6 2.1 State of California .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Public Resources Code ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3 California Coastal Act .................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 City of Seal Beach ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 General Plan .................................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 7 4.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Analysis of Existing Data ............................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Paleontological Potential ............................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Paleontological Impacts Assessment ............................................................................................ 9 5.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Project Area Geology and Paleontology ..................................................................................... 10 5.3 Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources from Project Activities ..................................... 16 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 17 7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables Table 1 Paleontological potential of geologic units within the Project area ................................................ 13 Table 2 Summary of the records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County ......... 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Project Area ................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Geologic Map of the Project Area ................................................................................................ 12 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Records Search Results from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County A-1 IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 iii Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a paleontological resources assessment on behalf of the City of Seal Beach (the City) for the City’s Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (the Project) composed of eight separate sites totaling 83.45 acres throughout Seal Beach in Orange County, California. Proposed updates to the Housing Element include the identification of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, a modification of the existing Main Street Specific Plan to provide additional residential developments at currently unspecified locations. This paleontological study was conducted in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Project, including the eight specific Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area. The proposed Project is subject to CEQA requirements regarding the Project's potential impacts on paleontological resources, with the City serving as the lead agency for the Project. As part of CEQA compliance, a paleontological resources assessment was conducted to assess potential impacts of the proposed Project on paleontological resources. This assessment consisted of an analysis of existing data including a museum records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and a review of the most recent geologic mapping, relevant scientific literature, and the online collections of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. This research was used to assign paleontological potential rankings of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) to the geologic units present in the Project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. The results of this study indicate that four geologic units are likely present in the Project area: beach and paralic estuarine deposits, which are assessed as having low paleontological potential; unit 2 of young alluvium which is assessed as having low-to-high paleontological potential, increasing with depth, and old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, which are assessed as having high paleontological potential. Additionally, older Pleistocene-aged marine formations with high paleontological potential such as the San Pedro Formation, Palos Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt may be present in the subsurface, underlying the other units. Should fossils with scientific importance be encountered during one of the resulting development projects from the updates to the Housing Element, the damage or destruction of the resources would constitute an indirect adverse impact of this Project. In order to reduce such impacts to less than significant, Stantec recommends a qualified paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist to review project-specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should include the following components: • For each development the Project Paleontologist should develop and oversee the implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include provisions for worker training, roles and qualifications of paleontology staff following those of Murphey et al. (2019), IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 iv depths and locations for monitoring, types of work to be monitored, monitoring procedures, requirements for final reporting of the results of the mitigation program, and fossil discovery protocols for work stoppage, assessment, and possible salvage and curation, in the event a fossil is found during construction. • Fulltime paleontological monitoring is warranted when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential in this study: when over 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. • The Project Paleontologist should develop a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of fossils during construction, to be delivered by the paleontological monitor to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. • In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, work should stop in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, while the paleontological monitor documents the find. If a monitor is not onsite at the time of discovery, such as for an inadvertent discovery in an area of low paleontological potential, work should stop until the Project Paleontologist can assess the find. The Project Paleontologist shall assess the find. Should the Project Paleontologist assess the find as scientifically important, the find shall be collected and curated in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 v Acronyms / Abbreviations bgs Below ground surface CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Seal Beach GIS Geographic Information System LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Ma Million years ago PRC Public Resources Code Project Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project RHD Residential High Density RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment Stantec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 vi Glossary Paleontological Monitor An individual who has academic training (B.S., B.A., M.A., or M.S.) with an emphasis in paleontology or demonstrated equivalent experience (a minimum of two years of cumulative professional or nonprofessional work in laboratory preparation, curation, or field work related to paleontology, as well as documented self-taught knowledge of the discipline of paleontology). [Murphey et al. 2019] Paleontological Monitoring Observation of construction activities by a paleontological technician, under supervision of the Paleontological Principal Investigator. Monitoring may be fulltime (observation of the entire duration of a particular activity) or consist of a spot check (observation of a portion of the activity or of an area following the activity). Paleontological Resource Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) [Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010] Project Paleontologist Someone with an advanced academic degree (M.A., M.S. or Ph.D.) with an emphasis in paleontology or demonstrated equivalent professional experience (e.g., minimum of 3 years [or 75 projects] of project experience with paleontological mitigation is considered equivalent to a graduate degree), in combination with 2 years (or 50 projects) of demonstrated professional experience and competency with paleontological resource mitigation projects at the level of field supervisor. [Murphey et al. 2019] IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 1 1 Introduction Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a paleontological resources assessment on behalf of the City of Seal Beach (the City) for the City’s Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (the Project) on eight separate sites totaling 83.45 acres of land throughout the City, in Orange County, California. This paleontological study was conducted in support of the City’s Housing Elements Updates in compliance with state mandated requirements for local governments to identify adequate sites for housing to meet existing and projected housing needs for various income-levels in the community. This paleontological study was conducted in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Project, including the eight specific Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area. The proposed Project is subject to CEQA requirements regarding the Project's potential impacts on paleontological resources, with the City serving as the lead agency for the Project. As part of CEQA compliance, a paleontological resources assessment was conducted to assess potential impacts of the proposed Project and the resulting increase in development on paleontological resources. 1.1 Project Description California State law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan for its physical development. The City’s most recent General Plan was adopted in December 2003. The Housing Element is one of seven State-mandated General Plan elements, which is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The Housing Element, which integrates and updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocated regional housing needs by income- level among member jurisdictions. This assessment report evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial impacts to paleontological resources that may result from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Element Update identifies eight Housing Opportunity Sites, two of which are underutilized sites that do not require rezoning and the remaining six sites are proposed for zoning modifications. Out of the six Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for rezoning, five would be rezoned to Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (RHD), a new zoning designation that is IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 2 proposed to be implemented. The remaining site would be rezoned to the City’s existing RHD-33 zoning designation. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a proposal of the Main Street Program which is analyzed in this report. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The assessment contained herein assumes the development of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites totaling approximately 83.45 acres (with a developable acreage of 35.05 acres) at 100 percent of the maximum allowable density resulting in the potential for 1,491 new dwelling units to be developed within the City. Additionally, though 100 percent buildout under the Main Street Program would allow for development of up to 163 new dwelling units, it is unlikely that 100 percent buildout within the Main Street Program area would occur and therefore, the assessment contained herein assumes the development under the Main Street Program at 70 precent of maximum buildout resulting in the potential for 115 new dwelling units to be developed within the Main Street Program area. 1.2 Project Location The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. The City borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest (Figure 1). The Project area is currently comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City and totaling 83.45 acres (Figure 2). However, the majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites would only allow for development within portions of the overall Housing Opportunity Site due to existing development and therefore, the total developable acres for the Housing Opportunity Sites is 35.05 acres. Additionally, the Project area includes the Main Street Program area. The Main Street Program falls within the boundaries of the existing Main Street Specific Plan area located within the City. Development potential for the Main Street Program is not based on potential developable acreage but rather the number of units that could be developed at select locations within the Main Street Program area. Specifically, the Project area is located in portions of Section 31, Township 04 South, Range 11 West and Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Township 04 South, Range 12 West, as depicted on the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangles. 1.3 Paleontological Resources Fossils are any evidence of ancient life, defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) as being over 5,000 years in age, or middle Holocene. While CEQA does not define a significance threshold for paleontological resources, the standards of the SVP (2010) are often used in the absence of a legal definition. The SVP defines scientifically important fossils as: IJ 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-22 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-22 IR by TJ on 2024-10-22 Project Vicinity Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:500,000"($$¯0 3.5 7 Miles ~ Bur ::i nk L C n d Fl intri d e nive rs Ci G l e nd a l e P asa d n a Beve rl y Hi ll s L os Ang el es E :::i t L os A n g I s S nt M onie 42 ln g l wood e oncl o e ch ncho l os Ve r es 0 To rranc e Dow n ey Long Bea ch 210 ___.. ·w st JCOV ll1 J ~ f• °"'o-,u ,:.._,, E l M o nt N o rw:::i lk Ce rrit os Full e rt o n R11•€:<&u., ftl'i ..... Lmcdn A,•! Anahe im KatellaAve ~ G :::ird e n G rove Huntingt o n B each Fount in V ll ey ~s O ran ge Sa nt Ana I rv in Cost a M sa footh ill Fwy P o m o n :::i Chin o Cl in o Hi l ls O nt ari o <1J .; "' v .il 60 New o rt e ch L ke Fo res t Miss i on V iej o L un Ni uel L un B e ch C C () Stantec ■ ■ 3: Accurate Storage 1: 1780 Pacific Coast 8: 99 Marina Drive 2: Leisure World 5: Old Ranch Town Center 7: Seal Beach Center 6: Seal Beach Plaza 4: Shops at Rossmoor Main Street 2 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-22 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-22 IR by TJ on 2024-10-22 Project Area Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:32,000"($$¯0 0.2 0.4 Miles IJm1tos Bay Cal1forn1a Slate Un1,ers1ty Long Beach St j; Manru D1 Se Be,c h ., u5 z ' ... ' \ um G ro , .,-Parl. 58 ft ta lll"l'l .v- 7-i 0 u.. Kempton Dr M:i i rn•ay Dr I B ch N:iton.:il ''1ldhf Rafu Old Ranch Country C tub Nestm1n Staton Seal Beach () Stantec [] [] Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 1 Introduction Project Number: 2042665000 5 identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years). [SVP 2010: 11]. Using this definition, the concept of scientific importance is included in the definition of paleontological resources; thus, not all fossils are considered to be paleontological resources. The threshold for scientific importance varies with factors such as geologic unit, geographic area, the current state of scientific research, and may also vary between different agencies (Murphey et al. 2019). Paleontological studies have developed criteria for the assessment of scientific importance of fossil discoveries (e.g., Murphey et al. 2019, Scott and Springer 2003). In general, these studies assess fossils as scientifically important if one or more of the following criteria apply: • The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct. • The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events, through biochronology or biostratigraphy and the correlation with isotopic dating. • The fossils provide ecological data, such as the development of biological communities, the interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas, or the biogeography of lineages. • The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life. • The fossils provide information on the preservational pathways of paleontological resources, including taphonomy, diagenesis, or preservational biases in the fossil record. • The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. • The fossils inform our understanding of anthropogenic affects to global environments or climate. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 2.0 Regulatory Framework Project Number: 2042665000 6 2.0 Regulatory Framework California has enacted multiple laws and regulations that provide for the protection of paleontological resources. This investigation was conducted to meet these requirements regarding paleontological resources on the lands proposed for development. 2.1 State of California 2.1.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000 et seq) requires that before approving most discretionary projects, the Lead Agency must identify and examine any significant adverse environmental effects that may result from activities associated with such projects. As updated in 2016, CEQA separates the consideration of paleontological resources from cultural resources (PRC Section 21083.09). The Appendix G checklist (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) requires an answer to the question, “Will the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” Under these requirements, Stantec has conducted a paleontological resources assessment to determine impacts of the proposed project on paleontological resources within the Project area. 2.1.2 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE The California PRC (Chapter 1.7, Section 5097) includes additional state-level requirements for the assessment and management of paleontological resources. These statutes require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources resulting from development on state lands, define the removal of paleontological sites or features from state lands as a misdemeanor, and prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from state land without permission of the applicable jurisdictional agency. 2.1.3 CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT The California Coastal Act (PRC Division 20) requires reasonable mitigation measures where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources that have been designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (Section 30244). 2.2 City of Seal Beach 2.2.1 GENERAL PLAN The City’s General Plan (2003) includes paleontological resources in the Cultural Resources Element, the purpose of which is to preserve historic, archaeologic, and paleontological resources within the City. The City requires assessment of development proposals for potential impacts to significant paleontological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA. If a project involves earthwork, the City requires a study IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 3.0 Professional Standards Project Number: 2042665000 7 conducted by a professional paleontologist to assess if paleontological assets are present and if the project will significantly impact the resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City requires the project to either be modified to avoid impacting the paleontological materials or require measures to mitigate the impacts. 3.0 Professional Standards A variety of professional guidelines have been developed that outline protocols and practices for conducting mitigation paleontology. In particular, some studies have focused on establishing best practices for conducting mitigation paleontology, including resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and other forms of mitigation, and data and fossil recovery in a mitigation context, which differs from academic paleontology in the constraints of working on construction sites and schedules as well as the purpose of mitigation paleontology as a tool for regulatory compliance (Landon 2006; Murphey et al. 2019; Scott and Springer 2003; SVP 2010). Furthermore, a robust body of scientific literature exists outlining best practices for paleontological data collection and management of fossils and fossil localities, some of which is authored by agency representatives (Lucas et al. 2006 and references therein; Santucci and McClelland 2001 references therein; Santucci and Koch 2003; Santucci et al. 2009). This study conforms to these industry best practices. 4.0 Methodology The paleontological resources assessment reported herein consisted of an analysis of existing data incorporating a museum records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and a review of the scientific literature, geologic mapping, and the online database of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). To assess if paleontological resources are likely to be encountered in any given area, the paleontological potential of the geologic units present in the area is assessed. Paleontological potential is derived from the known fossil data collected from the geologic unit as a whole, not just from a specific survey or study. Paleontological potential of a geologic unit consists of both (a) the potential for yielding abundant vertebrate fossils or for yielding scientifically important fossils, whether large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and scientifically important taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data (SVP 2010). The paleontological assessment presented here was conducted by Stantec Principal Paleontologist Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Background research was conducted by Paleontologist Ceara Purcell, M.S. Geographic Information System (GIS) maps were drafted by GIS Technician Kayla de la Pena, B.S. This report was authored by Dr. Bell with the assistance of Ms. Purcell and reviewed by Paleontologist Matthew Cline, M.S. Stantec’s work in support of the Project was managed by Anna Radonich, B.S., who coordinated Stantec’s work and provided quality assurance and control. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 4.0 Methodology Project Number: 2042665000 8 4.1 Analysis of Existing Data In order to assess the paleontological potential of the Project area, the most recent geologic mapping of the Project area was consulted to identify the geologic units present at the surface or likely present in the subsurface. A records search was requested from the LACM on January 24, 2024, with results received on January 28, 2024 (Appendix A). The search returned the closest known paleontological localities of the LACM to the Project sites from geological units present in the Project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. A review of the scientific literature was conducted to determine the history of each of the geologic units mapped as present at the surface or likely present in the subsurface of the Project area for preserving paleontological resources. A search was conducted of the UCMP’s online database on January 26, 2024, and updated on October 18, 2024 for Pleistocene-aged localities from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The UCMP’s database does not provide specific geographic locations beyond the county the fossils were recovered from but does include locality names that can sometimes be used to infer the general area of the locality. 4.2 Paleontological Potential The results of the analysis of existing data were used to assign the paleontological potential rankings of the SVP (2010) to the geologic units likely present in the Project area. These rankings are designed to inform the development of appropriate mitigation measures for the protection of paleontological resources and are widely accepted as industry standards in paleontological mitigation (Murphey et al. 2019; Scott and Springer 2003). These rankings are as follows: High Potential. Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rock units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that are temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e. g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.), some volcaniclastic formations (e. g., ashes or tephras), and some low-grade metamorphic rocks. Undetermined Potential. Rock units for which little information is available in the literature or museum records concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study and field work is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. Low Potential. Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections or, based on general scientific consensus, only preserve fossils in rare circumstances (e. g., basalt flows or Recent colluvium) have low paleontological potential. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 4.0 Methodology Project Number: 2042665000 9 No Potential. Some rock units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, for instance high-grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). 4.3 Paleontological Impacts Assessment Following the assessment of paleontological potential, an impacts assessment was conducted comparing anticipated development activities resulting from the proposed Housing Element Updates with mapped geologic units and their paleontological potential. As specific activities are not known at this time, the impacts assessment conducted is restricted to generalities of possible ground disturbance. Where potential adverse impacts from Project activities were identified, mitigation recommendations were developed to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Impacts to paleontological resources can be classified as direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts can also be considered as adverse impacts or as beneficial impacts. Direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources are the result of damage or destruction of these nonrenewable resources by surface disturbing actions including construction excavations. Therefore, in areas that contain paleontologically sensitive geologic units, ground disturbance has the potential to adversely impact paleontological resources by damaging or destroying them and rendering them permanently unavailable to science and society. Beneficial direct impacts, however, may result when paleontological resources are identified during construction and appropriately documented and salvaged, thus ensuring the specimens are protected for future study and education. Indirect impacts typically include those effects which result from the continuing implementation of management decisions and resulting activities, including normal ongoing operations of facilities constructed within a given project area. Human activities that increase erosion can also cause indirect impacts to surface and subsurface fossils as the result of exposure, transport, weathering, and reburial. Cumulative adverse impacts can result from incrementally minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. The incremental loss of paleontological resources over time from construction-related surface disturbance or vandalism and unlawful collection would represent a significant cumulative adverse impact, because it would result in the destruction of non-renewable paleontological resources and the associated irretrievable loss of scientific information. The impact assessment conducted here takes into consideration potential development activities and the geology of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites as well as the Main Street Program area, including the possibility of subsurface geologic units having a different paleontological potential than surficial units. For example, younger surficial sediments (alluvium, lacustrine, eolian, etc.) have low potential to preserve paleontological resources due to their age; yet sediments increase in age with depth and so these surficial deposits often overly older units that have high paleontological potential. In areas with this underlying geologic setting surficial work may be of low risk for impacting paleontological resources while activities that require excavations below the depth of the surficial deposits would be at greater risk of impacting paleontological resources. For this reason, and because specifics of future development such IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 10 as depths of ground disturbance are not known at this time, this impact assessment takes into consideration both the surface and subsurface geology of the Project sites overall. 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Geologic Setting The Project area is located in the Los Angeles Basin, a structural depression approximately 50 miles long and 20 miles wide in the northernmost Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province and just to the south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (Ingersoll and Rumelhart 1999). The Los Angeles Basin developed as a result of tectonic forces and the San Andreas fault zone, with subsidence occurring 18 to 3 million years ago (Ma) (Critelli et al. 1995). Sediments dating back to the Cretaceous (66 Ma) are preserved in the basin, but continuous sedimentation did not begin until the middle Miocene (around 13 Ma) (Yerkes et al. 1965). Thousands of feet of accumulation have resulted from sediments eroding into the basin from the surrounding highlands since that time (Yerkes et al. 1965). Until sea level dropped in the Pleistocene, most sediments deposited in the basin were marine. Following sea level fall, depositional of terrestrial alluvial sediments began, forming the uppermost units in the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is subdivided into four structural blocks. The Project occurs in the roughly rectangular Southwestern Block, most of which is beneath the Pacific Ocean, that extends 28 miles from the northwest to the southeast and is bound in the northwest by the Santa Monica Mountains (Yerkes et al. 1965). In the Southwestern Block sediments are about 20,500 feet thick (Yerkes et al. 1965). The coastal margin of the Southwestern Block, where the Project is located, is characterized by a series of emergent marine wave-cut terraces capped by paralic deposits, or interfingering marine and continental sediments (Saucedo et al. 2016). 5.2 Project Area Geology and Paleontology Geologic mapping by Saucedo et al. (2016) indicates the surface of the Project area consists of recent beach deposits, Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvial deposits and paralic estuarine deposits as well as middle to late Pleistocene shallow marine deposits on wave-cut terraces (Figure 3). The San Pedro Formation is also likely present in the subsurface (Table 1). These geologic units are described below. Beach deposits (Qb in Figure 3). Beach deposits are mapped in the southwestern portion of the map and underlie the southwestern edge of the Main Street Program area (Saucedo et al. 2016). These sediments are composed of unconsolidated, well-sorted fine- to coarse-grained sand that date from the late Holocene (Saucedo et al. 2016). Given their age, they are too young to preserve fossils and so are assigned low paleontological potential. However, they may be underlain at an unknown depth by older units with high paleontological potential. Paralic estuarine deposits (Qpe in Figure 3). Paralic estuarine deposits are mapped in the southern portion of the Project area, underlying the 99 Marine Drive site (Saucedo et al. 2016). These sediments are unconsolidated loose to moderately dense fine-grained sand, silt, and clay deposited in an estuarine IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 11 setting that date to the late Holocene (Saucedo et al. 2016). As for beach deposits, they are too young to preserve fossils and so are assigned low paleontological potential. However, they may be underlain at an unknown depth by older units with high paleontological potential. IJ 3: Accurate Storage 1: 1780 Pacific Coast 8: 99 Marina Drive 2: Leisure World 5: Old Ranch Town Center 7: Seal Beach Center 6: Seal Beach Plaza 4: Shops at Rossmoor af af Qype Qom Qom waterQpe Qom Qom Qya2 Qya2 Qom Qya2Qya2 Qya2 Qya2 Qya2 Qya2 Qya2 Qya2 water Qya2 Qya2 water Qya2 Qom Qom Qom Qya2 af water af af water af af af Qom Qypewateraf water af water af water QypeQom Qom QomQpe Qpe Qb water Qyf Qpe water water water water water water waterwater Qpe QpeafQpe 3 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Main Street Program Geology water af: Artificial fill Qb: Beach deposits Qpe: Paralic estuarine deposits Qya2: Young alluvium, Unit 2 Qyf: Young alluvial fan deposits Qype: Young paralic estuarine deposits Qom: Old shallow marine deposits on wave-cut surface V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-22 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-22 IR by AB on 2024-10-22 Geologic Map of the Project Area Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024, California Dept of Conservation, NGMDB 3. Background: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:32,000"($$¯0 0.2 0.4 Miles () Stantec □ □ ■ □ □ □ □ □ ■ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 13 Table 1 Paleontological potential of geologic units within the Project area Geologic Unit Age Occurrence within Project area Paleontological Potential* Beach deposits Late Holocene Surface - Main Street Program area Low Paralic Estuarine Deposits Late Holocene Surface - 99 Marina Drive Low Young alluvium Unit 2 Holocene and late Pleistocene Surface - Shops at Rossmoor, Old Ranch Town Center, Leisure World, Seal Beach Plaza Low-to-High, increasing with depth Old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface Late to middle Pleistocene Surface - Accurate Storage, Seal Beach Center, 1780 Pacific Coast, and the Main Street Program area High Older Pleistocene-aged Formations Middle to early Pleistocene Subsurface – possible across Project area High *ranking based on the SVP (2010) classifications Young alluvium, Unit 2 (Qya2 in Figure 3). Young alluvium, Unit 2 is mapped throughout the northeastern portion of the Project area, underlying the Shops at Rossmoor, Old Ranch Town Center, Leisure World, and Seal Beach Plaza sites (Saucedo et al. 2016). These sediments consist of poorly consolidated and poorly sorted flood-plain deposits of soft clay, silt, and loose to moderately dense sand and silty sand that date from the Holocene and late Pleistocene (Saucedo et al. 2016). As such, they range in age to over 11,700 years, the end of the late Pleistocene. As fossils are 5,000 years in age and older, the deeper portions of this unit, corresponding to the middle Holocene and older, are of an age to preserve fossils. The locality search from the LACM (2024) provides data on the two Pleistocene-aged terrestrial fossil localities known to the LACM closest to the Project area from sediments similar to the alluvium of the Project area (Table 2). The closest of these is from Seal Beach, southeast of the Project area where a camel fossil was found on the beach, likely having eroded from alluvial sediments or terrace deposits (LACM 2024). The second is from Huntington Beach, where mammoth, bison, and invertebrate fossils were found at depths of 6 feet to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). The online records search from the UCMP (2024) indicates they have 491 Pleistocene-aged fossil localities from Los Angeles County (exclusive of asphaltic localities at Rancho La Brea and microfossil localities) and 122 fossil localities from Orange County. While specific geologic information is not available online for most of these localities, 16 in Los Angeles County and three from Orange County appear to be from alluvial settings and likely represent a similar depositional environment to that of the older portions of the alluvium in the Project area. These sites yielded a variety of fossils, including invertebrates (seven localities), plants (six localities), and vertebrate fossils (seven localities) (UCMP 2024). A review of the scientific literature indicates that Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments are well known for the preservation of fossils representing a rich Ice Age fauna in the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity. These include animals still found in North America today, such as deer, bison, sheep, and horses; creatures no longer found in North America, such as camels, lions, cheetahs, and sloths; and extinct creatures such as IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 14 Table 2 Summary of the records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Locality Number Geologic Unit Age Taxa Approximate Location Depth LACM VP 3291 Unnamed formation Pleistocene Camel (Camelops hesternus) Sunset Beach; approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the 1780 Pacific Coast site Surface LACM VP 65113 Unnamed formation Pleistocene Mammoth (Mammuthus), bison (Bison); uncatalogued invertebrates 5092 Wintersburg Avenue in Huntington Beach; approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Seal Beach Plaza site 6 – 20 feet bgs LACM VP 1121 Terrace deposits Pleistocene Mammoth (Mammuthus), sea otter (Enhydrus), horse (Equus) Just south of Seal Beach; offshore from the Optional Site 15 feet below sea level LACM VP 7739 Coastal deposits Late Pleistocene Invertebrates (snails; clams; tusk shells; barnacles; crabs; sea urchins); requiem shark (Carcharhinus), Spotted cusk eel (Chilara), croakers (Genyonemus, Seriphus), school shark (Galeorhinus), righteye flounder (Glyptocephalus), guitarfish (Rhinobatos), toadfish (Porichthys), perch (Cymatogaster, Damalichthys), bullhead shark (Heterodontus), ray (Dasyatis, Myliobatus, Raja), surfperch (Embiotoca, Hyperprosopon, Micrometrus), flatfish (Citharichthys), leopard shark (Triakis), slender sole (Lyopsetta), dogfish shark (Squalus), skate (Squatina), barracuda (Sphyraena) Bluff Park (on the beach) in Long Beach; approximately 2.9 miles northwest of the 99 Marine Drive site 56 feet bgs LACM IP 4865 Palos Verdes Sand Pleistocene Decapoda, sand dollar (Dendraster), gastropods (Balcis, Californiconus, Calliostoma, Cerithideopsid, Chlorostoma, Crucinulum, Euclia, Hirtoscala, Turbonilla), ichnofossils (Helicotaphrichnus), bivalves (Coanicardita, Crepidula, Leukoma, Siliqua, Tellina), (Crucinulum), and others East side of Pacific Coast Highway; between Seventh and Colorado Streets in Long Beach; approximately 1.6 miles west of the Leisure World site Surface mammoths, dire wolves, and saber-toothed cats (Jefferson 1991 a and b, Graham and Lundelius 1994, McDonald and Jefferson 2008, Miller 1971, Reynolds and Reynolds 1991). In addition to these iconic large animals, a wide variety of small animals can be preserved, including reptiles such as frogs, salamanders, snakes (Hudson and Brattstrom 1977), and birds (Collins et al. 2018, Jones et al. 2008, IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 15 Miller 1941). These fossils are important for recreating the history of Southern California, in particular studying climate change (e.g., Roy et al. 1996), extinction (e.g., Barnosky et al. 2004, Jones et al. 2008, Sandom et al. 2014, Scott 2010), and paleoecology (e.g., Connin et al. 1998, Trayler et al. 2015). Given the record of paleontological resources recovered from middle Holocene and older alluvial deposits both near the Project area and more broadly across the Los Angeles Basin, these deposits are assessed as having low paleontological sensitivity at the surface, in the late Holocene portions of the unit, increasing to high paleontological potential in the older, deeper portions of the unit. The exact depth at which this transition occurs cannot be determined precisely in the Project area; however, the records of the LACM and reports in the scientific literature (i.e., Jefferson 1991a and 1991b, Reynold and Reynolds 1991) indicate that fossil have been found as shallowly as 5 feet to 6 feet bgs in the vicinity of the Project area. Old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface (Qom in Figure 3). These marine deposits, often referred to as terraces or terrace deposits, are mapped underlying the Accurate Storage, Seal Beach Center, 1780 Pacific Coast, and the Main Street Program area (Saucedo et al. 2016), but may be present more broadly in the subsurface, underlying the younger alluvial and paralic deposits. These deposits consist of terraces uplifted by regional tectonics, forming blocks of late to middle Pleistocene-aged marine and coastal sediments. These sediments are poorly sorted, moderately permeable, and reddish-brown, and represent interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine, and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate (Saucedo et al. 2016). They lie on uplifted emergent wave-cut abrasion platforms and may locally include older alluvium (Saucedo et al. 2016). These terraces are of an age to preserve fossils. The results from the LACM (2024) include two localities from coastal or terrace deposits, the closest of which is just offshore from Seal Beach, where mammoth, bison, and otter fossils were recovered from 15 feet below sea level (LACM 2024). This type of intermixed coastal and terrestrial fauna is typical of older terrace deposits, given the interfingering of terrestrial and costal sediments that typically mantle them. An additional site is recorded in Bluff Park, northwest of the Project area, where a diverse fish and marine invertebrate fauna were recovered from 56 feet bgs. Of the UCMP (2024) localities for which depositional environment can be inferred, 87 in Los Angeles County and 46 in Orange County are from marine depositional settings, but it cannot be determined from available data how many are from formal geologic units, such as the Palos Verde Sand described below, as opposed to terrace deposits. Pleistocene-aged marine terraces and associated coastal deposits have a rich fossil record from Ventura County along the southern California coast and into Baja California, as reported in the scientific literature (Kern 1971, 1977; DeDiego-Forbis et al. 2004). The vast majority of these fossils are marine invertebrate shell beds, but are vertebrate fossils are also reported (Bryant 1987). The scientific importance of these invertebrate fossils stems from the specificity of many types of marine invertebrates for water conditions such as depth and temperature in which they live (Kern 1977). Thus, the terrace deposits preserve fossils that allow scientists to reconstruct climate change, sea levels, tectonic processes, and depositional facies across space and time, using the taxonomic composition of the invertebrate fossils (Vedder and Norris 1963; Castillo et al. 2018; Kennedy et al. 1982; Grant et al. 1999). As the Pleistocene to Holocene transition was a time of great variation in sea level as the ice ages came to an end, such studies are IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 5.0 RESULTS Project Number: 2042665000 16 important for understanding how fauna respond to a changing environment (Kennedy et al. 1982; Muhs and Groves 2018). Given the extensive record of paleontological resource discoveries from older terrace deposits, mapped as old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface in the Project area, these deposits are assessed as having high paleontological potential. Older Pleistocene-aged Marine Formations (not mapped in Figure 3). Underlying the coastal and alluvial deposits in the Project area and around the greater San Pedro Bay are a series of early to middle Pleistocene formations that form the oldest of the marine terraces. While not exposed at the surface in the Project area, they may be encountered in the subsurface at unknown depths. These units include the San Pedro Formation, Palos Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt, which preserve shallow marine seafloor environments. These units are well documented for the preservation of a diverse and abundant fauna, dominated by invertebrates but with marine vertebrates documented as well as occasional terrestrial vertebrates that washed out to sea for burial (Long 1993; Powell and Stevens 2000; Rodda 1957). The LACM (2024) reports the closest fossil locality from these units as a dense accumulation of invertebrates from the Palos Verdes Sand approximately 1.6 miles west of the Project area. The UCMP (2024) has records of close to 300 localities from these units, with thousands of specimens in the collections. These units have high paleontological potential, as they are well documented for preserving a range of scientifically important fossils across the Los Angeles Basin. 5.3 Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources from Project Activities The Project proposes to update the Housing Element to include the identification of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, a modification of the existing Main Street Specific Plan to provide additional residential developments at currently unspecified locations. As the Project does not include any specific plans for ground disturbing activities, there are no direct adverse impacts to paleontological resources. However, particular projects conducted as a result of the rezoning and new zoning designations can be reasonably expected to include ground disturbance. New ground disturbance that occurs in geologic units with high paleontological potential may encounter paleontological resources. Should this occur during one of the resulting development projects from the updates to the Housing Element, the damage or destruction of the resources would constitute an indirect adverse impact of this Project. Within the Project area, this could occur at any depth in the Seal Beach Center, Accurate Storage, 1780 Pacific Coast, or the Main Street Program area, and at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet at the other Project Sites. Should such adverse impacts occur, they would contribute to cumulative impacts from the Project, along with similar such impacts from other development projects that may take place in the same area, and which target similar geologic units. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 6.0 Recommendations and Management Considerations Project Number: 2042665000 17 6.0 Recommendations and Management Considerations This assessment identifies possible indirect and cumulative adverse impacts that may result from this Project, should fossils with scientific importance, i.e., paleontological resources, be encountered during construction stemming from the updates to the Housing Element. Therefore, Stantec has developed mitigation recommendations for actions to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant, in accordance with CEQA requirements. A successful mitigation program is one which provides for the identification and appropriate treatment of paleontological resources. Important components are therefore worker training, so the construction personnel are aware of their obligations and actions to take in the event they discover a fossil, as well as oversight by trained paleontologists. This oversight is typically through onsite monitoring of construction activities. During monitoring, a paleontologist observes construction activities and halts construction temporarily to inspect the exposed sediments. If fossils are observed, the paleontologist will recognize them and stop work so that they can be assessed and, if found to meet criteria for scientific importance, salvage them for conservation and curation in a museum. Monitoring by experienced paleontologists greatly increases the probability that fossils will be discovered during ground-disturbing activities and that, if they are scientifically important, successful mitigation and salvage efforts may be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts to these resources. The ability to apply monitoring as a successful mitigation tool is tied to the nature of the ground disturbing activity. Construction monitoring requires a paleontologist to be able to observe either cuts into the ground, such as the sidewalls of trenches or a graded ground surface, or to observe spoils piles, such as from drilling or trenching. Methods such as grading, trenching, mass excavation, and augering produce either cut surfaces or spoils, and so are appropriate targets for paleontological monitoring. Activities such as grubbing and landscaping do not typically involve sufficient ground disturbance to warrant monitoring, while methods such as hydro vacuum and very narrow diameter augering (under 12 inches) are unlikely to allow for the identification of scientifically important fossils. The methods and depths of ground disturbance are currently undefined for particular development projects that may result from the update to the Housing Element. Therefore, Stantec recommends a qualified paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist to review project-specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should include the following components: • For each development the Project Paleontologist should develop and oversee the implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include provisions for worker training, roles and qualifications of paleontology staff following those of Murphey et al. (2019), depths and locations for monitoring, types of work to be monitored, monitoring procedures, IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 6.0 Recommendations and Management Considerations Project Number: 2042665000 18 requirements for final reporting of the results of the mitigation program, and fossil discovery protocols for work stoppage, assessment, and possible salvage and curation, in the event a fossil is found during construction. • Fulltime paleontological monitoring is warranted when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential in this study: when over 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. • The Project Paleontologist should develop a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of fossils during construction, to be delivered by the paleontological monitor to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. • In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, work should stop in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, while the paleontological monitor documents the find. If a monitor is not onsite at the time of discovery, such as for an inadvertent discovery in an area of low paleontological potential, work should stop until the Project Paleontologist can assess the find. The Project Paleontologist shall assess the find. Should the Project Paleontologist assess the find as scientifically important, the find shall be collected and curated in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 7.0 REFERENCES Project Number: 2042665000 19 7.0 REFERENCES Barnosky, A., C. Bell, S. Emslie, H. T. Goodwin, J. Mead, C. Repenning, E. Scott, and A. Shabel. 2004. “Exceptional record of mid-Pleistocene vertebrates helps differentiate climatic from anthropogenic ecosystem perturbations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 9297–9302. Bryant, M.E., 1987. “Emergent marine terraces and quaternary tectonics: Palos Verdes Peninsula, California.” Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Castillo, C.M., Klemperer, S.L., Ingle, J.C., Powell, C.L., Legg, M.R. and Francis, R.D. 2019. “Late Quaternary subsidence of Santa Catalina Island, California Continental Borderland, demonstrated by seismic-reflection data and fossil assemblages from submerged marine terraces.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 131(1-2): 21-42. City of Seal Beach (the City). 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan Cultural Resources Element. Available at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Cultural%20Resources.pdf accessed on October 23, 2024. Collins, P.W., Guthrie, D.A., Whistler, E.L., Vellanoweth, R.L. and Erlandson, J.M. 2018. “Terminal Pleistocene–Holocene avifauna of San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands: identifications of previously unidentified avian remains recovered from fossil sites and prehistoric cave deposits.” Western North American Naturalist 78(3): 370–403. Connin, S.L., J. Betancourt, and J. Quade. 1998. “Late Pleistocene C4 plant dominance and summer rainfall in the southwestern United States from isotopic study of herbivore teeth”. Quaternary Research 50: 179-193. Critelli, S. P. Rumelhart, and R. Ingersoll, 1995. “Petrofacies and provenance of the Puente Formation (middle to upper Miocene), Los Angeles Basin, southern California: implications for rapid uplift and accumulation rates.” Journal of Sedimentary Research A65: 656-667. DeDiego-Forbis, T., Douglas, R., Gorsline, D., Nava-Sanchez, E., Mack, L. and Banner, J. 2004. “Late Pleistocene (Last Interglacial) terrace deposits, Bahía Coyote, Baja California Sur, Mexico.” Quaternary International 120(1): 29-40. Graham, R.W. and E.L. Lundelius. 1994. FAUNMAP: A database documenting the late Quaternary distributions of mammal species in the United States. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers XXV(1). Grant, L.B., Mueller, K.J., Gath, E.M., Cheng, H., Lawrence Edwards, R., Munro, R., and Kennedy, G.L. 1999. “Late Quaternary uplift and earthquake potential of the San Joaquin Hills, southern Los Angeles basin, California.” Geology 27(11): 1031-1034. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 7.0 REFERENCES Project Number: 2042665000 20 Hudson, D., and B. Brattstrom. 1977. “A small herpetofauna from the Late Pleistocene of Newport Beach Mesa, Orange County, California.” Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 76: 16-20. Ingersoll, R. V., and P. E. Rumelhart. 1999. “Three-stage basin evolution of the Los Angeles basin, southern California.” Geology 27: 593-596. Jefferson, G.T. 1991a. “A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One, nonmarine lower vertebrate and avian taxa.” Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 5. ----------. 1991b. “A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two, Mammals.” Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 7. Jones, T., J. Porcasi, J. Erlandson, H. Dallas, T. Wake, and R. Schwaderer. 2008. “The protracted Holocene extinction of California’s flightless sea duck (Chendytes lawi) and its implications for the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105: 4105- 4108. Kennedy, G.L., Lajoie, K.R. and Wehmiller, J.F. 1982. “Aminostratigraphy and faunal correlations of late Quaternary marine terraces, Pacific Coast, USA.” Nature 299(5883): 545-547. Kern, J.P. 1971. “Paleoenvironmental Analysis of a Late Pleistocene Estuary in Southern California.” Journal of Paleontology 45(5): 810-823. -------------. 1977. “Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 88(11): 1553-1566. Landon, S. 2006. “Mitigation of fossil resources during oil and gas development.” In Lucas, S., J. Speilman, P. Hester, J. Kenworthy, and V. Santucci, eds. Fossils from Federal Lands. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 34. pp 22. Long, D.J. 1993. “Preliminary list of the marine fishes and other vertebrate remains from the late Pleistocene Palos Verdes Sand Formation at Costa Mesa, Orange County, California.” PaleoBios 15:9-13. Lucas, S., J. Speilman, P. Hester, J. Kenworthy, and V. Santucci, eds. 2006. Fossils from Federal Lands. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 34, 194 pp. McDonald G., H., and G., T., Jefferson. 2008. “Distribution of Pleistocene Nothrotheriops (Xenarthra, Northrotheridae) in North America.” Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series. 41: pp. 313-331. Miller, W. E. 1941. “A new fossil bird locality”. Condor 44:283-284. --------. 1971. “Pleistocene vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity: exclusive of Rancho La Brea.” Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Technical Reports, No. 10. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 7.0 REFERENCES Project Number: 2042665000 21 Murphey, P., G. Knauss, L. Fisk, T. Demere, and R. Reynolds. 2019. “Best practices in mitigation paleontology.” Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47: 43 pp. Muhs, D.R. and Groves, L.T. 2018. “Little islands recording global events: late Quaternary sea level history and paleozoogeography of Santa Barbara and Anacapa Islands, Channel Islands National Park, California.” Western North American Naturalist 78(4): 540-589. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). 2024. Paleontological locality records search letter. Email response received January 28, 2024. Norris, R., and R. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Powell II, C. L., and D. Stevens. 2000. Age and paleoenvironmental significance of mega-invertebrates from the" San Pedro" Formation in the Coyote Hills, Fullerton and Buena Park, Orange County, southern California. US Geological Survey Open File Report 2000-319. Reynolds, R. E., and R. L. Reynolds. 1991. “The Pleistocene beneath our feet: near-surface Pleistocene fossils in inland southern California basins”. In M. O. Woodburne, R. E. Reynolds, and D. P. Whistler (eds.), Inland Southern California: the last 70 million years. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California. Pp. 41 – 43. Rodda, P.U. 1957. “Paleontology and stratigraphy of some marine Pleistocene deposits in northwest Los Angeles Basin, California.” AAPG Bulletin 41(11): 2475-2492. Roy, K., Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., and Kidwell, S. M. 1996. “Scales of climatic variability and time averaging in Pleistocene biotas: implications for ecology and evolution.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(11), 458-463. Sandom, C., S. Faurby, B. Sandel, and J.-C. Svenning. 2014. “Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281, 9 pp. Santucci, V. and A. Koch. 2003. “Paleontological resource monitoring strategies for the National Park Service.” Park Science 22(1): 22–25. Santucci, V. and L. McClelland, L. 2001. “Proceedings of the 6th Fossil Resource Conference. Geological Resources Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-01/01.” National Park Service. 224 pp. Santucci, V., Kenworthy, J. P., and Mims, A. L. 2009. “Monitoring in situ paleontological resources.” In Young, R., and Norby, L., eds. Geological Monitoring. Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, p. 189–204. Saucedo, G.J., Greene, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., and Bezore, S.P. 2016. Geologic map of the Long Beach 30' x 60' quadrangle, California (ver. 2.0). California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps PGM-03-10.2016. Scale 1:100,000 IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California 7.0 REFERENCES Project Number: 2042665000 22 Scott, E. 2010. “Extinctions, scenarios, and assumptions: Changes in latest Pleistocene large herbivore abundance and distribution in western North America.” Quaternary International 217: 225-239. Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. “CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California.” The Environmental Monitor 4-10. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the assessment and Mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Available at https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed on October 17, 2024. Trayler, R.B., Dundas, R.G., Fox-Dobbs, K., and Van De Water, P.K. 2015. “Inland California during the Pleistocene—Megafaunal stable isotope records reveal new paleoecological and paleoenvironmental insights.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 437: 132- 140. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) 2024. Search of online database accessed at https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ on January 28, 2024 and October 18, 2024. Vedder, J.G. and Norris, R.M. 1963. Geology of San Nicolas Island, California (No. 369). United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 369. US Government Printing Office. 72 Pp. Yerkes, R. F., T. H. McCulloh, J. E. Schollhamer, and J. G. Vedder. 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin – an introduction. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A. IJ Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Orange County, California Project Number: 2042665000 APPENDIX A Records Search Results from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County IJ Research & Collections e-mail: paleorecords@nhm.org January 28, 2024 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Attn: Ceara Purcell re: Paleontological resources for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (2042665000) Dear Ceara: I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates project area as outlined on the portion of the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on January 24, 2024. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that may occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth. The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA). Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth LACM VP 3291 Sunset Beach at low tide, 50 yards north of Anderson Street & west of Pacific Coast Highway Unknown Formation (Pleistocene) Camel (Camelops hesternus) Surface LACM VP 1121 Just south of Seal Beach Pleistocene terrace deposit Mammoth (Mammuthus), sea otter (Enhydrus), horse (Equus) 15 feet below sea level LACM VP 65113 5092 Wintersburg Road; Huntington Beach Unknown formation (Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus), bison (Bison); uncatalogued invertebrates 6 - 20 feet bgs LACM IP 4865 Bluff on north side of the Stonebrook Apartment complex on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway; between Palos Verdes Sand Decapoda, sand dollar (Dendraster), gastropods (Balcis, Californiconus, Calliostoma, Cerithideopsid, Chlorostoma, Crucinulum, Euclia, Hirtoscala, Turbonilla), ichnofossils Surface Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90007 tel 213 .763 .DINO www.nhm.org Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth Seventh and Colorado Streets; city of Long Beach (Helicotaphrichnus), bivalves (Coanicardita, Crepidula, Leukoma, Siliqua, Tellina), (Crucinulum), and others LACM VP 7739 Bluff Park (on the beach adjacent to the eastern half of the southern edge of the parking lot); Long Beach Late Pleistocene* coastal deposits (dark gray massive sandy silt) Invertebrates (snails; clams; tusk shells; barnacles; crabs; sea urchins); requiem shark (Carcharhinus), Spotted cusk eel (Chilara), croakers (Genyonemus, Seriphus), school shark (Galeorhinus), righteye flounder (Glyptocephalus), guitarfish (Rhinobatos), toadfish (Porichthys), perch (Cymatogaster, Damalichthys), bullhead shark (Heterodontus), ray (Dasyatis, Myliobatus, Raja), surfperch (Embiotoca, Hyperprosopon, Micrometrus), flatfish (Citharichthys), leopard shark (Triakis), slender sole (Lyopsetta), dogfish shark (Squalus), skate (Squatina), barracuda (Sphyraena) 56 feet bgs VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface * Locality is 25 feet below carbon-14 accelerator mass spectrometry date of 43180 +/-710 years This records search covers only the records of the NHMLA. It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Sincerely, Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County enclosure: invoice Appendix F VMT Tables 1 Table 1: OCTAM 5 Data by Traffic Analysis Zone – Baseline Conditions OCTAM TAZ in City of Seal Beach Existing (2016) Conditions Total VMT Home-Based VMT Population Home-Based VMT per Capita Average Trip Length (miles) 637 335,838.01 110,756.36 4,433 24.98 9.56 638 26,758.69 17,726.73 841 21.08 9.77 639 276,149.07 133,896.71 5,201 25.74 9.97 640 134,632.90 48,235.01 4,174 11.56 9.27 641 107,522.36 53,498.05 3,592 14.89 10.08 642 514.57 169.81 0 0.00 122.34 643 93,759.27 3,971.09 191 20.79 11.95 644 21,720.62 14,558.82 615 23.67 13.77 645 75,341.26 37,611.53 1,646 22.85 8.24 646 65,125.12 42,154.07 2,183 19.31 8.79 647 156,494.73 87,144.75 3,280 26.57 9.19 648 116,467.25 32,784.39 1,305 25.12 8.73 649 36,230.19 9,349.64 456 20.50 7.72 890 44,829.92 33,783.67 1,288 26.23 9.54 OCTAM = Orange County Transportation Analysis Model; TAZ = traffic analysis zone; VMT = vehicle miles travelled Source: OCTAM 5 provided by Orange County Transportation Authority, February 2024 Table 2: OCTAM 5 Data by Aggregate Area – Baseline Conditions Area Existing Conditions - Home Total VMT Home-Based VMT Population Home- Based VMT per Capita Average Trip Length (miles) City of Seal Beach 1,110,716.03 481,100.60 23,484 20.49 10.35 Orange County 147,389,574.57 59,270,426.88 3,179,626 18.64 9.55 VMT = vehicle miles travelled Source: OCTAM 5 provided by Orange County Transportation Authority, February 2024 () Stantec 2 Table 3: RHNA Opportunity Site VMT Analysis Summary Opportunity Site No. Site Name Total Residential Units TAZ Home- Based VMT per Capita Threshold of Significance Above or Below Threshold of Significance Difference % Difference % Reduction Needed to Mitigate Impact 1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 5 648 25.12 20.49 Above 4.63 22.60% 18.43% 2 Leisure World 177 640 11.56 20.49 Below -8.93 -43.58%-- 3 Accurate Storage 83 643 20.79 20.49 Above 0.30 1.46% 1.44% 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 552 637 24.98 20.49 Above 4.49 21.91% 17.97% 5 Old Ranch Town Center 382 639 25.74 20.49 Above 5.25 25.62% 20.40% 6 Seal Beach Plaza 69 640 22.231 20.49 Above 1.74 8.49% 7.83% 7 Seal Beach Center 124 649 20.50 20.49 Above 0.01 0.05% 0.05% 8 99 Marina Drive 99 647 26.57 20.49 Above 6.08 29.67% 22.88% Main Street Main Street 115 647 26.57 20.49 Above 6.08 29.67% 22.88% Total 1606 -- 22.67 20.49 Above 2.18 10.64% 9.62% TAZ = traffic analysis zone; VMT = vehicle miles travelled 1 TAZ 640 includes Leisure World and the HEU opportunity site is not age-restricted, therefore, the HB VMT capita for the HEU opportunity site is estimated using the average of TAZ 643 (20.79) and TAZ 644 (23.67). "% Reduction Needed to Mitigate Impact" represents the minimum percent reduction in HB VMT per capita needed to equal the Citywide Average Baseline (i.e., threshold of significance). () Stantec 644 642 639 637 643 640 641 647 646 638 890 645 648 649 Legend TAZ Number TAZ Boundary RHNA Opportunity Site City of Seal Beach Limits 54 6 2 3 78 1Main Street Figure 1 OCTAM 5 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) XXX BOLSA AV EL E C T R I C A V1ST STMARINA DR P A C I F I C C O A S T H W Y EDINGER AV BOLSA CHICA STWARNER AV WESTMINSTER AV I-405 FREEWAYI-605 FREEWAYSEAL BEACH BLVDSR 22 FREEWAY KATELLA AV SEAL BEACH BLVDP A C I F I C C O A S T H W Y 3II :-=~ \, ~ cc: 'I" Ro smoor . . - r · I - -;---.·f I ~J I 'I \ Ii \ \ \ \ I \ I \ \ [I \___- • . • ~ ·-\ o · • .'--. G. G ~ '-.,. ~- '-.,. ~ 11 I lll• r,A C n H '--.. ~ I ', '"' lU t Be ch ~, '-.,. ~ N or l 1. • n A 0 23.67 25.74 24.98 20.79 11.56 14.89 26.57 19.31 21.08 26.23 22.85 25.12 20.5 644 642 639 637 643 640 641 647 646 638 645 648 649 890 Legend Traffic Analysis Zone Number City of Seal Beach Limits RHNA Opportunity Site OCTAM5 HB VMT per capita Below City Average HB VMT per Capita <5% Mitigation Required 6% - 23% Mitigation Required 54 6 2 3 78 1 City Average Baseline HB VMT per Capita = 20.49 Main Street Figure 2 OCTAM 5 Baseline HB VMT per Capita Estimates ´ XXX BOLSA AV EL E C T R I C A V1ST STMARINA DR P A C I F I C C O A S T H W Y EDINGER AV BOLSA CHICA STWARNER AV WESTMINSTER AV I-405 FREEWAYI-605 FREEWAYSEAL BEACH BLVDSR 22 FREEWAY KATELLA AV SEAL BEACH BLVDP A C I F I C C O A S T H W Y 4 ,, 7 I [: ___ _J r-----: 7 i : ________ J <t "" 0 ..J ; --! __ , ---- -1 -~---\ : .,.// l __ f \, \ iii 0 c.,::: Rossmoor /// _____ _ /' / i \, \ ! \ ! \\ !: 't I I A F H !I II A I ; 'A 11 1,•u•i ,r , A 'r ,r ft, ,nA _____.----~-1----d ---------------~~~~_-_:f ------,_ --------,, -===- (,--------------- ,/ // // ()/ / T I Tnnr I rt Humt, I t If ur ['ill I lll I A Appendix G Water Supply Assessment Water Supply Assessment City of Seal Beach, Orange County, CA Final Report April 30, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 200 East Carrillo Street, Suite 101 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 ~ Stantec WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review 0 Draft GMK 10/25/24 CEP/ JTZ 10/25/24 AR 10/22/24 1 Final JTZ 4/25/25 CEP 4/25/25 AR 4/25/25 2 Revised Final JTZ 4/30/25 CEP 5/2/25 AR 4/30/25 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 This document entitled Water Supply Assessment was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of City of Seal Beach (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Gabrille Kasman, EIT Reviewed by (signatures) Jonny Zukowski, PE Approved by (signature) Carrie Poytress, PE ~ ( IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 iv Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... VI ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 9 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................. 9 1.2 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ...............................................................13 1.2.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(a) .............................................................. 13 1.2.2 Law: Water Code Section 10912 .................................................................. 13 1.3 PROJECT RELATION TO URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN..............................14 1.3.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(c) .............................................................. 14 1.4 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE LAND USES .............................................................15 1.4.1 Existing Land Uses ...................................................................................... 15 1.4.2 Proposed Land Uses .................................................................................... 16 1.5 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ...................................................................22 1.5.1 Public Water System Infrastructure .............................................................. 22 2.0 WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................25 2.1 CITY CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND ...............................................25 2.2 PROJECT WATER DEMAND .......................................................................................26 2.2.1 Construction Water Demand ........................................................................ 28 3.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................28 3.1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ....................................................28 3.1.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(d) .............................................................. 28 3.1.2 Law: Water Code Section 10910(f)............................................................... 29 3.2 DEMAND REDUCTION .................................................................................................29 3.3 CITY WATER PROJECTED SUPPLY ...........................................................................30 3.3.1 Imported Water ............................................................................................ 30 3.3.2 Groundwater Analysis .................................................................................. 32 3.3.3 Emergency Connections .............................................................................. 34 3.4 CITY WATER SUPPLY DURING NORMAL, SINGLE DRY-YEAR, AND MULTIPLE DRY-YEARS ...............................................................................................34 3.4.1 Normal Water Year ...................................................................................... 34 3.4.2 Single Dry Water Year.................................................................................. 35 3.4.3 Multiple Consecutive Dry Water Years ......................................................... 36 3.5 CITY WATER SUPPLY AND ADDITIONAL DEMAND COMPARISON .........................39 4.0 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................42 5.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................44 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations .......................................15 Table 1-2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) ............................................16 Table 1-3: Rezoned Sites Inventory ..........................................................................................17 Table 2-1: City of Seal Beach Current and Projected Water Demand .......................................26 Table 2-2: GSWC Current and Projected Water Demand .........................................................26 Table 2-3: Summary of Project Potential Dwelling Units ............................................................27 Table 2-3: Estimated Project Water Demand ............................................................................27 Table 3-1: City’s Projected Water Supply Portfolio ....................................................................30 Table 3-2: GSWC Projected Available Water Supply Portfolio ..................................................30 Table 3-3: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year................34 Table 3-4: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year ...........35 Table 3-5: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year .....................36 Table 3-6: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year ................36 Table 3-7: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025-2045) ................................................................................................................37 Table 3-8: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025-2045) ................................................................................................................38 Table 3-9: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ...............40 Table 3-10: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ........40 Table 3-11: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ...............................................................................40 Table 3-12: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ...............................................................................41 Table 3-13 City’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP .........................................................41 Table 3-14 GSWC’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP ....................................................42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Vicinity ...........................................................................................................11 Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Site Locations ...........................................................................12 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND GSWC WEST ORANGE SERVICE AREA 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS LINK .........................................46 APPENDIX B SEAL BEACH 2012 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE LINK ......................47 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 vi Executive Summary City of Seal Beach retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to prepare this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Housing Element Updates Project (Project) in Seal Beach, California. The Project includes the use of potable water from the City of Seal Beach (City) and Golden State Water Company (GSWC). This WSA was conducted in conformance with the requirements of the California Water Code (CWC). The purpose of this WSA is to determine whether the projected water supplies available to the retail water suppliers, the City of Seal Beach and GSWC, are adequate to serve the projected water demands established in both the City of Seal Beach’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update (prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc), and the GSWC’s 2020 UWMP West Orange Service Area by Tully & Young, and the water demands generated by the Project. The UWMPs incorporated the City’s and GSWC’s existing and planned future water uses for 2025 to 2045. This WSA assumes that Project will be fully built-out by 2029 and was not included in either UWMP. Per the Project, each development site has a proposed General Plan involving the addition of residential units. These sites have existing infrastructure that is expected to remain in place. Therefore, while it is assumed the UWMP accounted for the existing demand of these locations in its water demand projections, it did not account for the increased water demand resulting from the residential units of the Project. The estimated water demands of these new units must be determined and considered additional to the amounts projected in the UWMP. Using the potential density of residential units, estimated developable area, and water demand duty factors, the build-out water demand for each site was calculated. The total annual Project water demand during years with normal weather is 405 AFY and 435 AFY during a multiply dry year period. Like the City’s 2020 UWMP and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes a 6% increase and 10% increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years to serve the City’s and GSWC’s customers, respectively. Therefore, with the 6% increase applied to the City’s portion of the Project demand of 266 AF, the additional supply required by the City of Seal Beach during a five-year dry period is estimated to be 282 AF. With a 10% increase applied to GSWC’s portion of the Project’s demand of 139 AF, the additional supply required by GSWC is 153 AF. Table ES-1: Project Supply and Demand Comparison Water Supplier Project Water Demand During a Normal Year (AFY) Project Water Demand During a Five-Year Dry Period (AFY) City of Seal Beach 266 282 GSWC West Orange Service Area 139 153 Total 405 435 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 vii The projected supply established in the UWMPs from 2025 to 2045 assumed that supply would meet demand during normal, single, and multiple dry year conditions due to both the City’s and GSWC’s ability to pump groundwater per their annual established Basin Production Percentage (BPP) and by purchasing imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) water through a connection with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) as needed. With a five-year dry period, including the demands from the proposed Project, the City’s estimated total water demand in 2045 is 3,786 AFY and GSWC’s is 17,488 AFY as shown in Table ES-2. According to the annual established BPP and purchases of MET water through MWDOC, reliable supply is available to the City and to GSWC to meet the Project demands. Table ES-2: Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison - City of Seal Beach 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year UWMP Projected Supply (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 UWMP Projected Demand (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Project Water Demand (AF) 0 282 282 282 282 UWMP Projected Demand with Project Demand (AF) 3,366 3,852 3,825 3,798 3,786 Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% Table ES-2: Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison - GSWC 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year UWMP Projected Supply (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 UWMP Projected Demand (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 3,504 Project Water Demand (AF) 0 153 153 153 153 UWMP Projected Demand with Project Demand (AF) 15,893 16,483 16,933 17,395 17,488 Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT April 30, 2025 viii Abbreviations AF Acre-feet AFY Acre-feet per year AMSL Above Mean Sea Level Approx Approximate BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic feet per second City City of Seal Beach CWC California Water Code DU Dwelling unit DWR California Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report Ex Existing GIS geographic information system gpcd Gallons per capita per day GPD Gallons per day HCD State Department of Housing and Community Development Master Plan City of Seal Beach 2012 Water Master Plan Update MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin OCWD Orange County Water District ORCC Old Ranch Country Club OCSD Orange County Sanitary District RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment SB Senate Bill (California) SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SWP State Water Project UWMP City of Seal Beach’s Urban Water Management Plan WSA Water Supply Assessment WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The City of Seal Beach, California (City, Seal Beach) encompasses approximately 13 square miles and is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the north, the Orange County Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west, as shown in Figure 1. The City’s Housing Element Update, adopted by the City Council on February 7, 2022, is one of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan and is required to be updated every eight years. In response to comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023, and again in March 2024. The most up to date version of the Housing Element Update is from August 2024. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units. According to the Housing Element Update, housing developments that have been proposed but are not expected to receive a certificate of occupancy until after July 1, 2021, yet are anticipated to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA. The Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Project, which proposes the development of 167 new dwelling units, is currently pending approval. Additionally, seven ADUs are projected to be constructed within the City during the planning period. With the combined total of these projected ADUs and the Old Ranch Country Club Project (174 dwelling units), there are only 1,069 dwelling units of the RHNA allocation that the Housing Element Update must provide. The original Housing Element Update initially identified 13 Housing Opportunity Sites (Sites) throughout the City where existing parcels can be redeveloped for additional housing. However, the number of Sites in the latest Housing Element Update (August 2024) was reduced to eight. Under a conservative development scenario (70%-80% of the maximum allowed dwelling unit density), these eight Sites could provide a total additional 1,165 dwelling units. These Sites include two (2) underutilized sites with 129 dwelling units and six (6) rezone sites for mixed use with 1,036 dwelling units. With 1,165 dwelling units from the Housing Opportunity Sites and 174 units from projected ADUs and the Old Ranch Country Club Project, the City can count a total of 1,339 units toward its RHNA allocation – exceeding the required 1,243 units and providing an 8% buffer. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 10 Although a maximum buildout scenario cannot be counted in the sites inventory against the City's RHNA, this WSA will analyze this more intense level of development in the following sections to provide the most conservative water demand estimate. Under maximum buildout, the Sites could yield 1,491 dwelling units. In addition to the eight Sites, the most recent Housing Element Update introduces a “Main Street Program.” This Main Street Program is a revised version of the 'Main Street Specific Plan,” which was originally identified as one of the 13 Sites in the initial Housing Element Update but was removed from the list in the latest version. Rather than the original estimate of 163 dwelling units for the Main Street area, the latest Housing Element Update estimates a more realistic total of 115 units (or 70% of the original projection). The eight Sites and Main Street Program are shown in Figure 2. With the 1,491 dwelling units from the eight Sites (assuming maximum buildout) and 115 dwelling units from the Main Street Program (assuming 70% of maximum buildout), development from the latest Housing Element Update (the Project) is expected to result in a total of 1,606 dwelling units. IJ 1 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Optional Site for Future Development V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-17 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-17 IR by TJ on 2024-10-17 Project Vicinity Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Topographic Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:500,000"($$¯0 3.5 7 Miles ~ Bu r ank L C n d Fli ntr id e n ive rs Ci G l e nd a l e Pa sa d na Beve rly Hi ll s L os A nge l s Ea t L os A n g I s S nt M onie W S ,,u scn Ave 42 l n g l wood e onclo e ch R ncho l os Ve r es To rr a n ce Downey Long B each 210 ---" E l Mont W sJ Covin a ~ ~ !?f~ij ,=..,, 4- V) / r N o rwa lk Ce rrit os Fullert o n Rh'ef.!i<0'9 ftl'i ..... I.Jnccln A,•~ An ahe i m Katel l aAve ~ .s Ga rd en G rove Huntin gt o n Beach Foun t in V ll ey ~s O range Sa n t An a / I rvi n Cost a M sa foothi ll Fwy O nt ar i o Pomona M "' 60 Chin o <1J Chi n o Hill s .; "Cl -.:; ii New o rt e ch L ke Fo res t 1iss i on V iej o L un Ni uel L un B e ch C L C () Stantec ■ ■ Accurate Storage 1780 Pacific Coast 99 Marina Drive Leisure World Old Ranch Town Center Seal Beach Center Seal Beach Plaza Shops at Rossmoor Main Street 2 City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Sites Optional Site for Future Development V:\1858\Active\2042665000_SealBeachHousingElement\03_data\gis_cad\gis\Pro\SealBeach_Oct2024\SealBeach_Oct2024.aprx Revised: 2024-10-17 By: kdelapena204266500 City of Seal Beach, California Prepared by KDLP on 2024-10-17 IR by TJ on 2024-10-17 Project Area Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Project Location Client/Project Figure No. Title Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024. 3. Background: World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, NGS World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, NGA, EPA, USDA (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:32,000"($$¯0 0.2 0.4 Miles IJm1tos B , y Cal1forn1a Slate Un1,ers1ty Long Be ch -IP Manru D1 r,. Se B ,ch um Gro•, Par!. "5a ft ta l111:1 i,..~e cii 0 u.. Kempton Dr M:i i rn•ay Dr 5" to Old Ranch Country Club I B ch N:ition:il \'1ldhl Refu /l/est m1n. Naval V Staton Seal Beach () Stantec □ □ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 13 1.2 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PURPOSE The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report is to satisfy Senate Bill 610 (SB610), Water Code Section 10910 et seq., Senate Bill 221 (SB221), Government Code Section 66473, and Senate Bill 1262 (SB1262) that require documentation showing adequate water supplies are or will be available to meet the water demand associated with a proposed Project. Since the 2020 UWMPs did not include any portions of the Project as part of the City’s RHNA, per Water Code Section 10912, the proposed dwelling units from the Project triggers the requirement for a WSA. SB610 and SB1262 stipulate when a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the appropriate water supply agency must provide an assessment on whether its total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand. The Project is subject to these requirements as it qualifies as “a large commercial, industrial, or mixed-use development” as described in SB610. SB610 amended the portions of the California Water Code, including the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Act (Section 10631) and described elements of a WSA (Sections 10910, 10911, 10912, 10913, and 10915). SB1262 further amends Water Code 10910 to identify the water system not just in the service area but those adjacent to the project site that could potentially supply water to the project. In this case, elements of a WSA are consistent with UWMPs by Section 10631 and different in that they are only required as part of the environmental review process for an individually qualifying project. In addition, SB221 requires that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions, as defined by California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1), must include an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supplies. 1.2.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(a) (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. 1.2.2 Law: Water Code Section 10912 For the purpose of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Project" means any of the following: 1. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 2. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3. A proposed commercial building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor area. 4. A hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 14 5. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6. A mixed-use project that includes one or more specified in this subdivision. 7. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project. 1.3 PROJECT RELATION TO URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City is a retail water supplier for the Project, except for Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, which will be served by another retail water supplier, Golden State Water Company (GSWC) West Orange. The City prepared a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (Appendix A), that was adopted by City Council in June 2021. GSWC also prepared a 2020 UWMP for their West Orange Service Area, (Appendix A), which was adopted in July 2021. This WSA relies on the information contained in both 2020 UWMPs and references it in the following supply and demand analysis. Both the City and GSWC meet their demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater. It is projected that for each year noted in the UWMPs including 2045, the supply will match the projected demand. There is adequate Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) water supply through MWDOC available to both the City and GSWC, should the need arise. It is assumed the Project falls under CWC Section 10910 (c) (3), as no portion of the Project was accounted for either 2020 UWMP. 1.3.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code [CEQA], shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 15 (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. 1.4 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE LAND USES 1.4.1 Existing Land Uses The City’s current base zoning and overlay districts, including the General Plan land use designation implemented by zoning designation from Section 3.5 of the UWMP, are provided in Table 1-1 below. Table 1-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations1 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Base Residential Zoning Districts Residential Low Density – 9 a RLD-9 Residential Low Density Residential Low Density – 15 a RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density – 18 b RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residential High Density – 20 c RHD-20 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 33 c RHD-33 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 46 c RHD-46 Residential High Density Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density d L-C/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office Service Commercial CS/SC Service Commercial General Commercial GC General Commercial Light Manufacturing LM Light Manufacturing Oil Extraction OE Oil Extraction Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS Community Facility and School Recreation/Golf RG Open Space – Golf Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts Military M Military 1 City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11.1.05.030, 2021 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 16 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation Implemented by Zoning Beach BEA Beach Open Space Natural OS-N Open Space Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR Park Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations Residential Conservation Overlay RC-O All Planned Unit Development Overlay PUD/PD All Commercial/Park C/P All Coastal Zone CZ All Specific Plan Regulation SPR All Notes: a Single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per net acre. b Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. c Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. d Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. 1.4.2 Proposed Land Uses As previously mentioned, the Housing Element Update identifies eight Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing. The City is nearly built-out with almost no vacant developable land remaining. Therefore, the City must rely primarily on non-vacant sites to increase the City’s housing potential. As demonstrated in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 below, the Sites consists of two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Table 1-2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required)2 2 City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, 2024. Site No. Site Name Address (APN) Approx. Acres Developable Acres Current General Plan Zoning 1 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy 199-061-01 0.25 0.25 Limited Commercial/ RMD-20 2 Leisure World 095-691-04 5.5 5.5 Residential High Density – Planned Community IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 17 Table 1-3: Rezoned Sites Inventory3 Site No. Site Name Address (APN) Approx. Acres Developable Acres Current General Plan Zoning Proposed General Plan Zoning 3 Accurate Storage 095-791-18 4 1.8 RHD-20 MU 46* 4 The Shops at Rossmoor 086-492-51 27 12 GC MU 5 Old Ranch Town Center 130-861-14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21, -22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27 26 8.3 GC MU 6 Seal Beach Plaza 095-641-44, -49, -55, -56, -57 7 1.5 CS-SC CS/SC and MU-O 7 Seal Beach Center 043-260-02, -05 9 2.7 SC SC/MU-O 8 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 4.3 3 OE RHD/RHD-20 Notes: * The current MU is only associated with LC/RMD. A new mixed-use zoning category would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46. Though all Housing Opportunity Sites are within the City of Seal Beach, Site No. 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor is anticipated to be served water by GSWC and not the City of Seal Beach. The remaining seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are anticipated to be served by the City of Seal Beach. The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, with an explanation of the methodology for selecting the sites that are currently developed with various uses An in-depth description of each Housing Opportunity Site is provided below (Seal Beach 2022). Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning) Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; Pacific Coast Highway), at the eastern corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west are single family residential uses. Size: 0.25 acre Current Use: retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop. Current Zoning: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) 3 City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, 2024. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 18 Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. Due to the age and marginal condition of the structure, taken in combination with the value of the land, this site is an excellent and likely candidate for redevelopment with a new residential or mixed-use project. It is immediately adjacent to housing, with excellent access to goods and services. Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 21.8 units/acre. The site can reasonably accommodate ground floor commercial use and parking with four second-story housing units. Because of its maximum allowable density, this parcel has been listed in the moderate- income site inventory. Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning) Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Boulevard, Seal Beach Boulevard, Interstate (I)-405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about 0.33 miles from the southwestern corner of the community. Size: 5.5 acres Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage Current Zoning: Residential High Density–Planned Development (RHD-PD) Reason For Selection: This is an underutilized site in a community that, while not income-restricted, offers very affordable living options, with units selling far below the cost of condominiums elsewhere in the region. For example, a one-bedroom unit may be found for under $300,000 while elsewhere pricing starts in the $500,000 range. More than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consists of low- to moderate-income households. Additionally, the community is already developed to higher densities, with a few buildings at three stories with parking underneath. Additional units could integrate well into the community and could spread ongoing maintenance and operational costs among a greater number of owners, helping to keep those costs in an affordable range. Furthermore, such development has precedent. The series of three-story buildings referenced, known as Mutual 17, were built in the 1980s, well after the rest of Leisure World was developed, and include 126 2-bedroom, 2-bath condominiums on a little less than five acres. As only one percent of the site is proposed for redevelopment, and adequately sized common areas are present, the existing uses will not impede the anticipated amount of residential development. A development proposal at this site can be approved administratively. No additional zoning revisions are needed. Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 125 moderate-income units can be accommodated on approximately 5.5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage at a density of 32.2 units to an acre. New three-story buildings can accommodate parking on the ground level with units above. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 19 Site 3 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required) Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. Size: 4.4 acres Current use: Self storage facility Current zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20) Reason for selection: This site was previously selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking, location close to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has good access to employment and transit routes. Due to the high land value and relatively low utilization, there is significant financial incentive for residential development on this property. Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to a maximum density of 46 units per acre that will enhance the financial viability of adding residences to the site. Development of 1.8 acres could yield 66 above-moderate units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the need to design around existing buildings, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than 2 acres, this site uses a conservative estimate of only 10 percent at lower- income and 10 percent at moderate income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre. Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. Size: 27 acres Current use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington Current zoning: General Commercial (CG) Reason for selection: This site was selected due to an abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 20 retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use. Assumed development capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that approximately 12 acres of surface parking could be developed with housing, at a proposed 46 units per acre, resulting in 441 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, Table projects 276 units at lower-income, 14 units at moderate-income, and 151 at above-moderate-income. The Shops at Rossmoor is anticipated to be served water by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. Size: 26 acres Current use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket. Current zoning: General Commercial (GC) Reason for selection: Like the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town Center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. Currently, the former Bed Bath and Beyond store is vacant. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with on-site residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development. Assumed development capacity: It is assumed approximately 8.3 acres of the surface parking lot of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses, creating a mixed-use environment at 46 units per acre, for a total of 306 units. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, as well as density over 30 dwelling units per acre, this site estimates 258 units at lower-income and 48 at moderate-income. Due to its proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, all residential units would be conditioned to meet interior noise level standards of 45 decibels, however, this is not an obstacle to development as this is also the standard in the California Building Code. Housing currently exists to the north and northeast of the site, also adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 21 Site 6 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required) Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Boulevard. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. Size: 7 acres Current use: Retail and office/service uses Current zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason for selection: This site has a low improvement value to land value ratio at 0.72 and has experienced some large tenant turnover in the past, which could indicate a need to reposition the site for long-term success in the future. Like other retail plazas, it is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers excellent access to goods and services, and augmenting the site with housing would benefit the on-site retailers. The adjacent Leisure World utilizes higher densities, and the Naval Weapons Station is immediately east, and is not a conflicting use. Assumed development capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project. Assuming that residential uses are developed on 1.5 acres of surface parking at the site at a base density of 46 du/acre, 55 moderate-income units could be accommodated following adoption of a new mixed-use zoning district. Site 7 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required) Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street, the commercial core of the Old Town area. Size: 9 acres Current use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket, and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces. Current zoning: Service Commercial (SC) Reason for selection: This site has an improvement value to land value ratio of 0.72, indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides excellent walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. Moreover, the property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed use as a future possibility to increase site utility. Assumed development capacity: With a mixed-use zoning allowing up to 46 units per acre, and 2.7 acres of surface parking, the capacity would be 99 above-moderate units without using a density bonus. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 22 Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive (Rezoning Required) Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection. Size: 4.3 acres Current use: Vacant. At some point, a handball court was constructed on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court primarily for safety reasons as the court is located adjacent to a public park. Current zoning: Oil Extraction (OE) Reason for selection: Previously a site that supported oil extraction in the area, the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquiries received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense and is generally expected by the community. Assumed development capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the 30- du/ac default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production expected at the site is 69 units, all of which are assumed to be above moderate, to be extremely conservative. 1.5 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1.5.1 Public Water System Infrastructure – City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach 2012 Water Master Plan Update (Master Plan) provided an evaluation of the City’s water supply system to develop guidelines for the construction of new and replacement facilities. The objective of this Master Plan was to develop the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consisting of projects that would enhance, maintain, or replace aging facilities through 2014-2021. In addition, the CIP is considered a planning tool that will allow construction of the recommended projects to improve the water system and meet system performance criteria for existing and future customers. Although the water system was evaluated in 2012, the development of the housing unit proposed project was not part of the analysis. The City does not have a current Master Plan for years after 2020. Per the 2012 Master Plan and the 2020 UWMP, the City’s domestic water system consists of 74.8 miles of transmission and distribution system pipes ranging from 4-inch to 20-inch diameter, two booster pump stations, two forebay reservoirs, four production wells, four disinfection sites, 680 fire hydrants, and 5,350 service connections, one imported water supply connection to purchase water from MET and several emergency connections. There are no direct surface-water or recycled water uses in the City’s service area. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 23 The City’s water system is in a single closed zone system and system pressure is maintained through the imported water supply connection and the booster pump stations, Bolsa Chica Well and Lampson Avenue Well. The service area is divided into several communities such as Old Town, Bridgeport, Marina Hill, Hellman Ranch, the Boeing and police facilities, City yard, surfside, Leisure World Retirement Community, College Park East and West, Bixby Old Ranch and Old Ranch Golf Course, the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, Sunset Aquatic Park, and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. City’s service area has been stable with an annual average of 3,482-acre feet (AF) for potable use. City’s water demands are met through a combination of imported water and local groundwater. 1.5.2 Public Water System Infrastructure – GSWC West Orange Service Area The GSWC West Orange Services Area covers approximately 15.4 square miles in western Orange County and delivers potable water to approximately 114,000 customers including the Cities of Cyprus, Stanton, Los Alamitos, and small portions to the Cities of Seal Beach, Garden Grove, and La Palma and some adjacent unincorporated county customers. GSWC West Oranges Service Area has 27,643 water service connections. Per GSWCs 2020 UWMP, the West Orange Service Area’s system is comprised of fourteen active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of 11,850 gallons per minute, owned and operated by GSWC. These well sites are disinfected locally with 12.5 percent sodium-hypochlorite injection solution. The groundwater is blended with water purchased from MWDOC. The West Orange Service Area’s system has four emergency interconnections to allow sharing of supplies during short term emergencies or planned shutdowns. These interconnections include connections to the City of Garden Grove, the City of Seal Beach, the City of Buena Park, and GWSC’s Artesia System. 1.5.3 Public Water System Supply As mentioned previously, the City of Seal Beach and Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area use a combination of imported water and groundwater to supply their customers. Each water supply is summarized below: 1.5.3.1 Imported Water Imported water purchased from MET is supplied to the City by MWDOC via West Orange County Water Board. The connection, OC-35, is located at Springdale Street and Westminster Avenue and is shared with the City of Huntington Beach, who is responsible for managing, maintaining, and operating the facility. The maximum capacity for the City’s connection is 9.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 1,132-acre feet per year (AFY) of imported water, 35% of the City’s total water supply, to meet its demands. The City imports an average of 0.5 AF per month from September through June for the purpose of flushing the transmission main of stagnant water. Flushing is performed sporadically when disinfection levels fall below a certain threshold. The City of Huntington Beach monitors the City of Seal Beach’s portion of the OC-35 connection and controls conveyance. Historically, the City switches over to import water during the months of July and August. During these two months, the City typically maintains a IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Introduction zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 24 flowrate between 3-5 cfs. A flow rate higher than 6 cfs is seldom needed. The only occasions where the flow would be close to the maximum capacity of 9.9 cfs is if there is a large water main break or a fire flow demand. GSWC also purchases MET water from MWDOC and manages the allocations of the supplies among the Placentia-Yorba Linda and the West Orange Service Areas to meet both service areas needs and reduce costs for their customers. The West Orange Service Area purchased an average of 713 AF over 2016 to 2020, with 2019 and 2020 purchases being less than 75 AF. GSWC also purchases a small amount of potable water from the City of Seal Beach through its existing connection to the City. In 2020, GSWC purchased 34 AF from the City of Seal Beach. See Section 3.3.1 for further analysis of imported water sources. 1.5.3.2 Groundwater Production The City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange Service Area pump groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC BASIN). This basin is managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD) and covers an area of approximately 350 square miles and the boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line northwest. The City’s water system includes four groundwater wells that include the Bolsa Chica Well, the Beverly Manor Well, the Lampson Avenue Well and the Leisure World Well. As of 2021, Leisure World Well is inactive. Per the City’s UWMP, the groundwater volume pumped in 2016-2020 by the City is relatively stable with the highest volume, 2,400 AF, pumped in 2019. In FY2019-20, the City pumped approximately 2,141 AF of groundwater. GSWC also produces groundwater within the OC BASIN via fourteen active groundwater wells and pumped an average of 17,000 AFY during 2016 to 2020 with the highest volume, 19,031 AFY, being pumped in 2018 (GSWC 2021). See Section 3.3.2 for an analysis of groundwater water sources. 1.5.3.3 Emergency Connections The City is authorized to use water through emergency interconnections with the City of Long Beach, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Westminster, and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and it does not currently have plans to introduce new exchanges and transfers. Two reservoirs, Navy and Beverly Manor, store 1.10 MG and 2.38 MG for fire suppression and operational needs respectively per the UWMP. The Navy Booster Station is located within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, east of Seal Beach Boulevard and north of Bolsa Avenue. Beverly Manor Booster Station is located south of the San Diego Freeway and west of Seal Beach Boulevard. GSWC West Orange Service Area maintains four emergency interties with four agencies and a combined capacity of over 4,500 gpm. These connections are intended to serve as emergency use for system outages, maintenance, or other supply disruption. These supplies are not included in the supply IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Demand Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 25 projections. In addition to the Seal Beach intertie, emergency interties exist with the City of Garden Grove, City of Buena Park, and GSWC Artesia Service Area. As no use was observed in the last 5 years tables are not presented in this WSA. 1.5.3.4 Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City anticipates water demand to remain constant over the next 25 years. The Capital Improvement Program approved by the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget includes several projects to improve the City’s water supply reliability. These projects include renovations of two of the City’s three water supply well facilities, construction of a wellhead treatment plant at the Lampson Well facility, rehabilitation projects at Bolsa Chica and Beverly Manor wells, and a study to replace aging water meters with Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and SCADA Improvements. Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC has established water rates that support their CIP and operation and maintenance costs. No CIPs were reported in the UWMP. 2.0 WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT As mentioned in Section 1.2, Senate Bill 610 stipulates when a project is subject to CEQA, then the appropriate water supply agency must provide an assessment on whether its total projected water supplies (determined by the water supply agency’s UWMP) will meet the projected water demand. In addition, SB221 requires that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions, as defined by California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1), must include an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supplies. This Water Demand Assessment section estimates the Project water demands in addition to the projected water demands from the 2020 UWMPs to address the above requirements of the CWC. 2.1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND In FY2019-20, the City had a service area population of 24,000 people and an actual consumption rate of 95 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) with a total water consumption of 3,272 AF per the 2020 UWMP. As shown in Table 2-1, this water consumption includes commercial, institutional/governmental, landscape, and losses. According to the 2020 UWMP, from 2025 to 2045, the City’s residential water demand is projected to decrease, while usage by commercial, industrial, and institutional/governmental is projected to increases. Demands for large landscape applications are projected to stay consistent, while the volume of losses is projected to slightly increase (although this holds constant as a percentage of total water use). See Table 2-1 for a summary of the City’s current and future population and water demand out to 2045. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Demand Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 26 Table 2-1: City of Seal Beach Current and Projected Water Demand 4 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Served 24,000 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Total Water Demand (AF) 3,272 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Single/Multi- Family Residential 2,306 2,467 2,442 2,417 2,393 2,382 Commercial 492 490 663 663 663 663 Institutional/Governmental 111 111 150 150 150 150 Landscape 16 24 24 24 24 24 Losses 347 84 89 89 88 88 Per the City’s UWMP, the City’s current population is expected to increase by 1.5% over the next 25 years and the total number of dwelling units is expected to increase from 14,064 in 2020 to 14,171 in 2045. The dwelling unit projection in the UWMP did not include the City’s RHNA allocation nor the Project. Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area’s projected population is based on the 2020 estimated population and projected growth from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The projected growth rate for the City of Cyprus was used to project the growth rate for GSWC’s West Orange Service Area through 2045. Water demand is expected to grow due to the growth in population. See Table 2-2 for a summary of GSWC’s West Orange Service Area projections. Table 2-2: GSWC Current and Projected Water Demand5 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Served 114,235 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Total Water Demand (AF) 14,173 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Single Residential 6,601 6,493 6,671 6,855 7,044 7,237 Multi- Family Residential 2,614 2,667 2,740 2,816 2,893 2,973 Commercial 2,936 3,283 3,374 3,467 3,562 3,660 Institutional/Governmental 46 59 61 62 64 66 Landscape 828 810 833 856 879 903 Losses 1,148 825 848 871 895 920 2.2 PROJECT WATER DEMAND As previously outlined in Section 1.1, the Project proposes the addition of up to 1,606 residential units across eight Sites and the Main Street Program. These locations have existing infrastructure that is 42020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021 52020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 2-1, 4-5 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Demand Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 27 expected to remain in place. This WSA assumes that while the 2020 UWMPs accounted for the existing demand of these locations in its water demand projections (see Table 2-1), it did not account for the increased water demand resulting from the proposed Project. Therefore, the estimated water demands of these new units must be determined and considered in addition to the amounts projected in the UWMPs. As previously described in Section 1.1, this WSA will provide a conservative water demand estimate by assuming maximum buildout for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and 70% of the maximum buildout the Main Street Program. Table 2-3 below summarizes the number of dwelling units of each Project location. Table 2-3: Summary of Project Potential Dwelling Units Water demand for the eight Sites and the Main Street Program was estimated by multiplying the total number of dwelling units by a water demand duty factor that the City has established for the residential land use category. This WSA assumes the duty factor includes landscape irrigation water demand within the factor. The estimated project water demand for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program is summarized in Table 2-3 below. The annual Project water demand is 361,350 GPD or 405 AFY, however Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor are served by GSWC. See Table 2-3 for a summary of estimated water demand for the Project. Table 2-4: Estimated Project Water Demand Site No. Developable Area (Acres) Maximum Allowed Density Total DU Housing Opportunity Sites 1,491 1 0.25 21.8 5 2 5.5 32.2 177 3 1.8 46 83 4 12 46 552 5 8.3 46 382 6 1.5 46 69 7 2.7 46 124 8 3 33 99 Other Sites 115 Main Street* 10.5 - 115 Total Housing Element Update Sites 1,606 *The proposed commercial area and total dwelling units for the Mission Street Program was developed by assuming 70% of the buildout described in the original Housing Element Update Total Residential Units (DU) Residential Duty Factor (GPD/DU) Water Demand (GPD) (AFY) Served by City 1,054 225 237,150 266 Served by GSWC 552 225 124,200 139 Total 1,606 225 361,350 405 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 28 2.2.1 Construction Water Demand Project construction will require water for dust control and other general construction activities. During construction, water is assumed to be provided from existing fire hydrants adjacent to the project sites following the City’s and GSWC’s procedures. It is assumed grading will take place to move around soil for the redevelopment of the sites. However, there is no estimate for the earthwork at each site and therefore construction water could not be estimated at this time and is not accounted for in this WSA. 3.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 3.1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS In accordance with CWC Section 10910 (d), Section 3 of this WSA identifies the sources of potable water that are available to the Project. The purpose of this section is to evaluate if the water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple-dry water years over a twenty-year period (2025-2045) are adequate to meet the projected demands established in both of the 2020 UWMPs. Because groundwater is a source of supply for the City of Seal Beach and GSWC (and in turn for the proposed Project), SB610 requires specific groundwater information to be included in the WSA. In accordance with CWC Section 10910 (f), this section will also provide a detailed description of the local groundwater basin. 3.1.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(d) 1): The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. (2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following: (A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. (C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. (D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 29 3.1.2 Law: Water Code Section 10910(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment: (1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as over drafted or has projected that the basin will become over drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631. 3.2 DEMAND REDUCTION The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (also known as Senate Bill X7-7 or SB X7-7) was a California state law that required the state to reduce urban water consumption by 20% by the year 2020. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 30 According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City complied with the SB X7-7 Compliance Option 3 requirements by achieving 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. In addition, the City was able to achieve at least a 5% decrease in water usage compared to the average of the previous five years. The City’s actual 2020 GPCD was 95 which is below the 2020 target of 142 GPCD which complies with SB X7-7. The City and GSWC are members of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance, which was formed by MWDOC and consists of 29 retail agencies. The City benefits from MWDOC’s assistance in calculating baseline water use and water use targets. GSWC West Orange Service Area compliance target was established as 141 GPCD per the selected SB X7-7 Compliance Option 3. In 2020, GSWC was able to meet the compliance requirements by achieving 111 GPCD which equates to a 21% reduction from the compliance target. 3.3 WATER PROJECTED SUPPLY As mentioned previously in Section 1.5, the City and GSWC obtains their water supply from a combination of imported water and groundwater from the OC Basin. According to the UWMPs, it is projected that by 2045, the City’s and GSWC’s water supply portfolios will compose of 85% groundwater and 15% imported water (Table 3-1). Table 3-1: City’s Projected Water Supply Portfolio6 Source Potable Water Supply (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Groundwater OC Basin 2,699 2,862 2,841 2,820 2,810 Imported Water MWDOC 476 505 501 498 496 Total Water Supply 3,175 3,367 3,342 3,318 3,306 Per GSWC 2020 UWMP, it is assumed that supply will meet demand and GSWC will only acquire water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year. The following table shows the supply that is available to GSWC West Orange Service Area regardless of demand. Table 3-2: GSWC Projected Available Water Supply Portfolio7 Source Potable Water Supply (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Groundwater OC Basin 19,800 20,210 20,630 21,602 21,505 Imported Water MWDOC 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Imported Water City of Seal Beach 40 40 40 40 40 6 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 6-2 7 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 3-3, 3-6, 3-9, 3-15 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 31 Total Water Supply 21,940 22,350 22,770 23,202 23,645 3.3.1 Imported Water The City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange Service Area purchase water from MWDOC. MWDOC is a MET member agency and MET’s supply projections consider the imported demands from Orange County, including demands from the City of Seal Beach. Per MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP, approximately 427,000 AF of imported water was used by MWDOC’s customers with 143,000 AF being used for retail water sales including the City of Seal Beach. MWDOC’s expects the average retail water sales to be approximately 126,000 AFY out to 2045. The water from MET includes water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) as Table A water, managed by MET. Both water supplies are treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located in Yorba Linda, CA and delivered to MWDOC and multiple other agencies throughout Southern California. Per the 2020 UWMP for MET, the Colorado River supply faces current and future imbalances between water supply and demand conditions due to long term drought and climate change. MET has helped fund and implement various programs to improve the Colorado River supply reliability including developing future transfer programs and recycling water in the Colorado River Basin. Similarly, the SWP faces many challenges concerning its long-term sustainability due to climate change. As of 2020, water deliveries are approximately 60% of the maximum Table A contract entitlements (DWR, 2020b). Per the UWMP, water exports since 2005 have seen a decreasing trend due to regulatory restrictions among others. It should be noted that there are multiple factors that can affect the ability to estimate existing and future water delivery reliability. Water storage plays a significant role in MET’s resource management strategy. MET’s capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), is dependent on its storage resources. In recent years, groundwater basins and local reservoirs have dropped to low operating levels and remain below optimal storage levels due to long term drought conditions. (MET, 2021). To increase the reliability of water supplies MET continues to invest in flexible storage, transfer programs including groundwater storage, recycling water, water conservation, and pursuing long-term solutions for the ecosystem, regulatory and water supply issues related to the SWP (MET, 2021). MET’s water reliability assessments are used to determine that demands within MWDOC can be met during normal and drought conditions. 3.3.1.1 City of Seal Beach The City’s imported water supplies are delivered via a connection (OC-35) to MWDOC, which delivers water from MET. The maximum capacity for the OC-35 connection to the City is 9.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). Outside of flushing the system, a flow rate higher than 6 cfs is seldom needed. The only occasions where the flow would be close to the maximum capacity of 9.9 cfs is if there is a large water main break or a fire flow demand. As there is no allocation contract known at this time, the City can theoretically purchase up to 7,170 AFY to meet its demands, though this may be unlikely as water purchased through IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 32 MWDOC is estimated during the prior year based on estimated demands and considering the supply by groundwater sources for that year. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 1,132-acre feet per year (AFY) of imported water, 35% of the City’s total water supply, to meet its demands and projected demand in the UWMP showed a nominal increase through 2045. 3.3.1.2 GSWC West Orange Service Area According to GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC also purchases MET water from MWDOC and manages the allocations of the supplies among the Placentia-Yorba Linda and the West Orange Service Areas to meet both service areas needs and reduce costs for their customers. The West Orange Service Area purchased an average of 713 AF over 2016 to 2020, with 2019 and 2020 purchases being less than 75 AF. GSWC also purchases a small amount of potable water from the City of Seal Beach through its existing connection to the City. In 2020, GSWC purchased 34 AF from the City of Seal Beach. 3.3.2 Groundwater Analysis The Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) is managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD) and covers an area of approximately 350 square miles and the boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line northwest. There are three major aquifer systems hydraulically connected, the Shallow Aquifer, the Principal Aquifer, and the Deep Aquifer. Groundwater can flow between each system through intervening aquitards. Over 90% of groundwater production is pumped from wells connected within the Principal Aquifer system occurring at depths between 200 and 1,300 ft below ground surface. In 2014, the State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to support and manage its groundwater sustainably and mitigate significant low groundwater levels, land subsidence, and water quality issues. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, to be sustainably managed. DWR designated the non-adjudicated Coastal Plain of OC Basin (“Basin 8-1” or “Basin”) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. To comply with the SGMA, the agencies within Basin 8-1, led by OCWD submitted an Alternative to a Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSP) in 2017, titled the “Basin 8-1 Alternative”. This alternative will be updated every five years. According to the Basin 8-1 Alternative, OCWD monitors the basin by collecting groundwater elevation and quality data from over 2000 wells and facilities. This includes managing an electronic database that stores water elevation, water quality, and production data. As part of their Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. It is estimated that the basin has a total capacity of 66 million AF with an operating range of 500,000 AF below full condition. The operating range is established as the level of groundwater storage within the aquifer that can be maintained without causing adverse impact to the basin. The groundwater basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis but over a period of several years. The net change in the groundwater storage in any given year may be positive or negative depending on multiple factors and the basin level is maintained in an approximate balance. The OC groundwater basin is recharged through various means including natural water ways, such as the Santa Ana River and various creeks, recycled water from Los Angeles County IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 33 Department of Public Works (LADWP), imported water from MET, and the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). As part of the GWRS, through partnership with Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), OCWD manages a water recycling plant that provides up to 100 million gallons per day of advanced tertiary treated wastewater to supply recharge water and a seawater intrusion barrier within the OC BASIN. There are nineteen major groundwater producers that pump from the OC Basin. This includes the City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange. The groundwater producers meet on a monthly basis with OCWD to consult with and provide advice on basin management issues and meet bi-annually to establish a Replenishment Assessment (RA). The RA is based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. Demands from groundwater producers in the past, specifically 1996-1997, have been as high as 515,000 AFY, but have generally decreased to approximately 364,000 AF in 2015-2016. This general decrease is expected to continue due to conservation efforts and implementation of water efficient fixtures. Per the 2020 UWMP, pumping in 2019-2020 was 286,550 AF due to wells being turned off from PFAS impacts. OCWD expects total groundwater production within the OC Basin to average 320,000 AFY moving forward. The OC Basin is not adjudicated; therefore, management includes financial incentives to encourage sustainable pumping for groundwater producers. OCWD does not directly limit pumping from the OC Basin but assesses the basin annually and sets a Basin Production Percentage (BPP) based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from MET, the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors. OCWD establishes the BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the groundwater producer’s total water supply that comes from groundwater. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish a RA based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) fee. OCWD forecasts that the basin will be able to sustain a BPP of 85% beyond 2025 to meet demands from groundwater producers. Since the BPP is established annually by OCWD’s assessment of the OC Basin, the BPP is subject to change. For this WSA, the BPP is assumed to be held at 85% through 2045. Another tool that OCWD uses to sustainably manage the OC Basin is the Basin Production Limitation through Section 31.5(g)(7) of the OCWD Act. This act allows OCWD to set limitations on groundwater production and induce surcharges if the limits are exceeded. This management tool can be used when necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. A specific example of this is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifts pumping from the coastal areas to inland areas to minimize seawater intrusion as necessary. Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the groundwater volume pumped in 2016-2020 by the City is relatively stable with the highest volume, 2,400 AF, pumped in 2019. In FY2019-20, the City pumped approximately 2,141 AF of groundwater. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 34 Per GSWC West Orange’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC pump 17,686 AF to allocate between its Placentia-Yorba Linda, West Orange, and Cowan Heights Service Areas. 3.3.3 Emergency Connections As discussed in Section 1.5.1.3, the City has emergency interconnections with the Cities of Westminster, Long Beach, and Huntington Beach as well as Golden State Water Company that can be used to supplement water supply in special cases. GSWC West Orange has emergency interconnections between the City of Garden Grove, City of Buena Park, GSWC Artesia Service Area, and the City of Seal Beach as mentioned. This water will not be included in this WSA’s analysis of water supply as it is beyond normal operations of each of the water systems. 3.4 WATER SUPPLY DURING NORMAL, SINGLE DRY-YEAR, AND MULTIPLE DRY-YEARS Per the City’s and GSWC West Orange’s 2020 UWMPs, their Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) states that the water supplies available to each retail water supplier will meet projected water demand for normal, single-dry year, and consecutive dry years. The City and GSWC have the ability to purchase water as needed to meet the increasing demands during these periods as discussed further below. 3.4.1 Normal Water Year The prediction model developed for the Demand Forecast TM described in the City’s 2020 UWMP projects the 25-year water demand for the Orange County water agencies. Through this statistical model, current and future climate conditions (such as temperature, precipitation, drought, and conservation measures) are analyzed to show impacts on water demand. The model predicts the water supply availability and demand of a normal water year by using average demand conditions from FY2017-18 and FY2018-2019. The model showed that there is an adequate supply to meet demands through 2045 for the City. Table 3-2 summarizes the model projections below. Table 3-3: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year 8 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121 8 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7-2 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 35 Supply Total Available Supply (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Demand Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Supply/Demand Comparison Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, the West Orange Service Area will be able to meet the demand projections out to 2045 based on the supply available to GSWC. Though GSWC anticipates an available supply beyond what is required, GSWC will only acquire a water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year. The following table shows the supply that is required to GSWC West Orange Service Area to meet demand. Table 3-4: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year 9 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 110 113 115 118 120 Total Available Supply (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Supply/Demand Comparison Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 3.4.2 Single Dry Water Year Per the 2020 UWMP, the City defines the single dry year condition as a single year of minimum to no rainfall within a period where average precipitation is expected based on demands from FY2013-14. The forecasting model reflects the impacts of hot/dry weather conditions using a 6% increase in water demand from the normal year condition in City’s service area. The model concludes that there is an adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions, for the FY2013-14 single dry year, out to 2045. Table 3-5 summarizes the model projections for a single-dry year below. 9 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 36 Table 3-5: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year10 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121 Supply Total Available Supply (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Demand Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Supply/Demand Comparison Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 The expected water uses during a single-dry year for GWSC’s West Orange Service Area were estimated based on analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that impact the water supply to GSWC West Orange and its customers’ water uses. The drought effect assumes a 10% increase in demand in the West Orange Service Area. Though GSWC anticipates an available supply beyond what is required, GSWC will only acquire a water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year. Table 3-6 summarizes the projections for a single-dry year below. Table 3-6: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year11 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 121 124 127 129 132 Total Available Supply (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Supply/Demand Comparison Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 10 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7-3 11 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-2 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 37 3.4.3 Multiple Consecutive Dry Water Years Multiple dry water years, as defined in the UWMPs, is five or more consecutive dry years with below average precipitation and/or one that requires a reduction of water service to customers. For the City, the multiple dry years assumed that there is five consecutive dry years resulting in a 6% increase over normal demands above average supply for the consecutive 5-year period of 2012 to 2016. The model concludes that there is adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions for a multiple-dry year scenario out to 2045. Table 3-7 summarizes the model projections for multiple-dry years below. Table 3-7: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025- 2045)12 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121 First Year Total Available Supply (AF) 3,448 3,407 3,564 3,538 3,514 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,448 3,407 3,564 3,538 3,514 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Second Year Total Available Supply (AF) 3,428 3,447 3,559 3,532 3,511 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,428 3,447 3,559 3,532 3,511 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Third Year Total Available Supply (AF) 3,407 3,488 3,554 3,527 3,509 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,407 3,488 3,554 3,527 3,509 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Fourth Year Total Available Supply (AF) 3,386 3,529 3,548 3,521 3,507 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,386 3,529 3,548 3,521 3,507 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Fifth Year Total Available Supply (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 12 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7.4 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 38 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Per Section 8 of the 2020 UWMP, the City water shortage contingency planning efforts involve a comprehensive supply shortage response that includes demand reduction measures and supply augmentation actions. The City and its wholesale supplier, MWDOC, will periodically revisit its representation of the supply sources and of the gross water use estimations as well as revise the Drought Risk Assessment as needed. For the GSWC West Orange Service area, the multiple dry years assumed that there is five consecutive dry years resulting in a10% increase over normal demands. The analysis within GSWC’s 2020 UWMP concludes that there is adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions for a multiple-dry year scenario out to 2045. Table 3-8 summarizes the model projections for multiple-dry years below. Table 3-8: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025-2045)13 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Population Water Service Area Population 114750 115267 115787 116308 116833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 124 126 129 132 132 First Year Total Available Supply (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Second Year Total Available Supply (AF) 15,636 16,066 16,509 16,963 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,636 16,066 16,509 16,963 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Third Year Total Available Supply (AF) 15,721 16,154 16,598 17,055 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,721 16,154 16,598 17,055 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Fourth Year Total Available Supply (AF) 15,807 16,242 16,689 17,148 17,335 13 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-3 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 39 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,807 16,242 16,689 17,148 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 Fifth Year Total Available Supply (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 GSWC’s analysis demonstrates that it has reliable supplies to meet its customer demands in normal, single dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045. Groundwater and imported water from MWDOC are resilient during dry conditions and can reliably meet the West Orange Service Area demand. 3.5 WATER SUPPLY AND ADDITIONAL DEMAND COMPARISON According to the 2020 UWMPs for both the City and GSWC West Orange Service Area, the projected supply during any normal, single dry, or multiple consecutive dry water years out to 2045 will be adequate to meet the demands. However, these projections do not account for the demands associated with the Project. As previously discussed in Section 2.2, at full build-out, the total Project is estimated to require 405 AFY above the projected demands established in the 2020 UWMPs. Given that this WSA assumes the Project will be fully built-out with new appliances in 2029, future improvements in fixture efficiency have not been factored into the demand estimates. As a result, this WSA assumes the Project’s demand of 405 AFY will remain constant from 2029 through 2045. This is unlike the UWMPs, which assumes residential water use may decrease over time due to continued improvements in water-use efficiency. This WSA evaluates the percentage increase in the City’s and GSWC West Orange’s total water demand over a 25-year period due to the Project, comparing the impact during a normal year and during the largest demands from the five-year period of multiple dry years as a worst-case scenario. Based on the estimated additional water required for the City’s portion of the Project, an approximate 8% increase in supply is required to meet these demands. Based on the estimated additional water required for GSWC’s portion of the Project (Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor), an approximate 1% increase in supply to GSWC is required to meet these demands. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 for a summary of supply versus demand normal years for both the City and GSWC. 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 𝑤𝑤𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ℎ 𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃− 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃 ∗100% 3,634 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴− 3,368 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3,368 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴∗100%= 8% IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 40 Table 3-9: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Project Demand (AF) minus Site 4 0 266 266 266 266 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 3,175 3,634 3,608 3,583 3,572 Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% Additional Supply Required 0 266 266 266 266 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 𝑤𝑤𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ℎ 𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃− 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃 ∗100% 15,898 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴− 15,759 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 15,759 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴∗100%= 1% Table 3-10: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Site-4 Project Demand (AF) 0 139 139 139 139 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 14,137 14,666 15,065 15,476 15,898 Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Additional Supply Required 0 139 139 139 139 In accordance with the City’s 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes a 6% increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for the City’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 6% increase applied to the City’s portion of the Project demand of 266 AF, the total Project supply of 282 AF would be required during multiple dry years. Table 3-11: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Project Demand (AF) 0 282 282 282 282 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water Supply Assessment zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 41 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 3,366 3,852 3,825 3,798 3,786 Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% Additional Supply Required 0 282 282 282 282 Like GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes a 10% increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for GSWC’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 10% increase applied to GSWC’s portion of the Project demand of 139 AF, the total Project supply of 153 AF would be required during multiple dry years. Table 3-12: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Fifth Year Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Project Demand (AF) 0 153 153 153 153 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 15,893 16,483 16,933 17,395 17,488 Demand Increase 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Additional Supply Required 0 153 153 153 153 As mentioned previously, the BPP is established based on estimated demands within the basin and is subject to change on an annual basis. The BPP for groundwater production in this WSA is set at 85% based on the assumptions stated in the 2020 UWMPs. Based on this assumption, the City and GSWC will need to purchase 15% of its water supply over the next 25 years to meet demand. Based on the BPP of 85% For the City, a 6% increase in the City’s portion of the Project demands or 282 AF would require ground water pumping of 240 AF and purchasing of 42 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.07% increase of groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.04% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. See Table 3-7 for a summary of the City’s projected water supply portfolio with the increased demand from the Project, assuming the City’s BPP remains at 85%. Table 3-13 City’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 3,175 3,634 3,608 3,583 3,572 Groundwater Supply with 85% BPP (AF) 2,699 3,089 3,067 3,046 3,036 Purchased or Imported Water Supply (AF) 476 545 541 537 536 IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Conclusion zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 42 Additional Supply Required 0 0 0 0 0 Note: BPP is defined as the ratio of the City’s groundwater supplies to total potable water supplies. For the West Orange Service Area of GSWC, a 10% increase in Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor, or 153 AF during multiple dry years, would require ground water pumping of 130 AF and purchasing of 23 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.03% increase of groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.02% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. It should be noted that GSWC anticipates an apple supply available compared to the demand projections. In 2045, 153 AF represents a 0.7% of the 23,605 AF that is expected to be available to GSWC West Orange’s portfolio. See Table 3-7 for a summary of the City’s projected water supply portfolio with the increased demand from the Project, assuming the City’s BPP remains at 85%. Table 3-14 GSWC’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project Demand (AF) 14,137 14,666 15,065 15,476 15,898 Groundwater Supply with 85% BPP (AF) 12,016 12,466 12,805 13,155 13,513 Purchased or Imported Water Supply (AF) 2,121 2,200 2,260 2,321 2,385 Additional Supply Required 0 0 0 0 0 Note: BPP is defined as the ratio of the City’s groundwater supplies to total potable water supplies. The total demand from the Project during normal years, 405 AFY, represent approximately a 0.1% increase in groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.05% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. Based on this and resiliency of the supply sources, OC Basin and MWDOC, the demands associated with the project can reliably be met. To meet the full additional Project demand without increasing the amount of imported water beyond the annual volume described in the UWMP’s projection (see Table 3-1), each retail water supplier may have to increase their groundwater production or obtain additional sources of water. However, pumping beyond the established BPP may result in incurred costs associated with RA and BEA. 4.0 CONCLUSION The purpose of this WSA is to analyze whether the City’s total projected water supplies established in the 2020 UWMP during normal, single dry, and multiple consecutive dry water years are adequate to meet the projected water demands from the 2020 UWMP in addition to the water demand associated with the Project. The Project is assumed to be fully built-out by 2029. The calculated demand for the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) is 405 AFY during a normal year and 429 AFY l l l I I IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Conclusion zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 43 during a five-year dry period and has been added to the projected demands through 2045. Imported MET water purchases through MWDOC and groundwater production within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination based on the estimated demands and various other factors in Orange County. These estimated demands will include the Project starting in 2029. Based on METs reliability and the sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, this WSA expects that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMPs can be met with a BPP of 85% and 15% imported water. IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT References zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 44 5.0 REFERENCES City of Seal Beach. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20 UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793. Accessed January 12, 2024 City of Seal Beach. March 2012. Water Master Plan Update. Executive Summary Available at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Water%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20July %202012.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2024 City of Seal Beach. June 2021. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Available at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20 WSCP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.06.08.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-074625-340. Accessed January 12, 2024 Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area. July 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680%2F GSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F5202375113%2F MWDSC%202020%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan%20- %20June%202021%20WUE%20Portal.pdf Municipal Water District of Orange County. April 1, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at https://www.mwdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1.Draft-2020-Urban-Water-Management- Plan.pdf IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Appendix A city of Seal Beach and GSWC west orange service area 2020 Urban Water Management Plans Link April 12, 2024 zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 45 APPENDICES IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Appendix A city of Seal Beach and GSWC west orange service area 2020 Urban Water Management Plans Link April 12, 2024 zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 46 Appendix A CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND GSWC WEST ORANGE SERVICE AREA 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS LINK The City of Seal Beach’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan can be found here: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20UWM P%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793 Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area. July 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680%2FGSW C-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf IJ WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Appendix B Seal Beach 2012 Water Master Plan Update Link April 12, 2024 zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 47 Appendix B SEAL BEACH 2012 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE LINK The City of Seal Beach’s 2012 Water Master Plan Update can be found here: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Water%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20July%2020 12.pdf IJ Page 1 of 55 Program EIR for City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) I.Introduction On behalf of the City of Seal Beach (City), and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), the City’s Community Development Department caused preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). The City is the lead agency for the EIR. To support its certification of the EIR and approval of the Project, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach makes the following findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations (collectively, the “Findings”). These Findings contain the City Council’s written analysis and conclusions regarding the Project’s environmental effects, mitigation measures, alternatives to the proposed Project, and the overriding considerations which, in the City Council’s view, justify the approval of the proposed Project despite its potential environmental effects. These Findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the EIR, as described below. II.Background The Project evaluated in the EIR involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which include establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites and amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites and amendments to the MSSP resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses. The site inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects. The Housing Opportunity Sites include a total of eight sites that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken Page 2 of 55 into two categories: (1) underutilized sites that do not require Zoning Code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Beyond the site inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program as part of the Zoning Code Update to implement it’s the Housing Element Update. The Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed on the second floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update identified the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project is a proposed 155-acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone project EIR. This Program EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. III.Project Overview and Environmental Review Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall focus an EIR discussion on potentially significant environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not significant (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15128). A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this Project based on review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the Project and comments received as part of the public scoping process, as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of the Draft EIR (DEIR). The DEIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the Project. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on December 15, 2023. The Public Scoping Meeting on the DEIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023. The comments received on the NOP and during the Public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of the DEIR. The scope of the DEIR included the potential impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The City of Seal Beach filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to begin the public review period for the DEIR (PRC, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, the DEIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as to all parties requesting a copy of the DEIR in accordance with PRC Section 21092(b)(3). The DEIR was published by the City and available for review for a 45-day public review period that began on May 9, 2025 and ended on June 23, 2025. The DEIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online on the City’s website at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. During the public review period, the interested public and responsible and trustee agencies were invited to Page 4 of 55 submit comments on the DEIR to the City’s Community Development Department. The City’s Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) also held a public meeting on the DEIR on June 5, 2025, at which time the EQCB received oral comments and also provided comments to City staff on the DEIR. Following the completion of the public review period, the City reviewed all comments received on the DEIR and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). On September 17, 2025 the EQCB conducted an additional public meeting at which time additional public comments were received on the proposed FEIR, and Board members also provided additional comments. The FEIR, which incorporates by reference the DEIR, includes all comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and additional comments received during 2025 at the EQCB, Planning Commission, and City Council, also describes any changes to the DEIR that resulted from the comments received. All persons who commented on the DEIR have been notified of the availability of the FEIR and the dates of the public hearings on the Project before the Planning Commission and City Council, and all responses to comments submitted on the DEIR by public agencies have been provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made mitigation findings pursuant to Section 21081. The City has prepared an MMRP for the Project, which has been made available to the public with the FEIR. The EIR which is the subject of these Findings and presented for City Council certification consists of the DEIR, the FEIR, and the MMRP. The City and responsible agency approvals necessary for implementation of the Project are: Jurisdiction Permits/Approval City of Seal Beach Certification of CEQA document Certification of FEIR Adoption of MMRP Adoption of Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations Housing Element Update Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Map Amendment (Change of Zone) Main Street Specific Plan Amendment The EIR was prepared to meet all applicable CEQA requirements necessary to support these actions by the City Council and the responsible agencies. Page 3 of 55 Page 4 of 55 IV.City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code and Main Street Specific Plan Updates Amendments (Project) and Environmental Review A. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum: The EIR, which consists of the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110425), dated May 9, 2025 and published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from May 9, 2025 through June 23, 20253 (the DEIR), and the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available for public review on September 5, 2025 (the FEIR), and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related thereto; All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the preparation of the DEIR and the FEIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops and scoping sessions held to seek public comments and input on the Project; All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during and immediately after the public review periods for the DEIR and FEIR, including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held for the Project before the Environmental Quality Control Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; All minutes, testimony, statements, comments and other materials memorializing, describing or relating to workshops, meetings, scoping sessions, and hearings conducted by the City Council, the City’s Planning Commission, the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board, and all other departments of the City relating to the City’s review and consideration of the Project; All other public reports, studies, documents, memoranda, maps, or other materials reviewed and/or considered by the City in connection with its review and consideration of the Project, the DEIR, the FEIR, and the MMRP, whether prepared by the City, its consultants, or by third parties; All matters of common knowledge to the members of the City’s City Council, including but not limited to: (i) the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and other applicable policies and ordinances; (ii) information regarding the City’s fiscal status and economic and development patterns and trends; (iii) federal, state and local laws, regulations, guidelines and publications applicable to or affecting the Project; and (iv) reports, projections, documents and other materials regarding statewide, regional, and local planning and development matters within and outside of the City; and All other documents and materials relating to the Project as described in PRC Section 21167.6, as applicable. The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California. The custodian of these documents is the City of Seal Beach Clerk’s Office. Page 4 of 55 Page 5 of 55 B. Findings Regarding Preparation and Consideration of the EIR The City Council finds, with respect to the City’s preparation, review and consideration of the EIR, that: The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c) in retaining the independent consulting firm Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to prepare the EIR, and Stantec prepared the EIR under the supervision and at the direction of the City’s Community Development Director and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The City circulated the DEIR for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR and the Project were presented to the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board, which reviewed and considered the DEIR and FEIR, received public comments, and provided comments to City staff for inclusion in the FEIR. The EIR and the Project were presented to the City’s Planning Commission, which reviewed and considered, and conducted a public hearing thereon. The Planning Commission determined that the EIR was adequate and sufficient, and prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and these Finding and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the Project. The EIR and the Project were presented to the City Council of the City. The City Council reviewed and considered, and conducted a public hearing on, the EIR and Project. The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the EIR, except as otherwise specifically provided and described in these Findings. V.Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts A detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and proposed mitigation measures to address all of the identified potentially significant impacts, is set forth in Section 3.0 of the Initial Study and Section 3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, that changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the Project and feasible mitigation measures implemented, which avoid or lessen some, but not all, of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects to less than significant levels. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the EIR’s conclusions for all of the following potential environmental impacts, based on the analyses on the referenced pages of the DEIR. A. Findings Regarding No Impact or Less than Significant Impacts This section identified impacts of the Project that were determined to be no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation measures, as set forth in Section 3.0 of the Initial Study and Section 3.0 of the Page 6 of 55 DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such less than significant impacts. INITIAL STUDY 1. Aesthetics Impact AES-a: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources; nor are there any specific policies related to the preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including building heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. Impact AES-b: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There are no state designated or eligible scenic highways located near the Project site nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state designated scenic highway is SR 91, from its intersection with SR 55 to the northeast for approximately 4 miles along the Santa Ana River, and it is the only state designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site is located more than 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91 and therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there would be no impact. Impact AES-d: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Implementation of the Project would occur primarily in areas designated for redevelopment of currently underutilized parcels in the City. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within illuminated areas. While the increased density associated with Project implementation would introduce new sources of light and glare in their immediate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply with City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and light standard heights. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact AG-a: The Project would not result in the conversion of 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. Page 7 of 55 None of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites have been identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to cause impacts to Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. As such, the Initial Study identified that implementation of the Project would have no impact. Impact AG-b: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The Project does not have the potential to conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. According to the City’s Zoning Map Index and Orange County’s Public Works Land Records Map, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are under existing zoning designations that allow agricultural uses onsite and none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Williamson contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. Impact AG-c: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)). There are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact. Impact AG-d: The Project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use. The parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and no forest lands are located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact. Impact AG-e: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderate- income residential uses in areas throughout the City. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use nor were any of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified to include important farmland. The Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and there would be no impact. 3. Biological Resources Impact BIO-e: The Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Future developments on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. However, all resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by these regulations and ensure the Project does Page 8 of 55 not lead to damage to or removal of regulated trees. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. 4. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-c: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during moving activities. Future developments under the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American heritage Commission (NAHC). Although construction activities associated with future developments could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. 5. Energy Impact EN-b: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update and future individual development projects resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Code (CalGreen). Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with and implement goals and policies identified in the Housing Element Update that support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. With implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. 6. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-a: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv) landslides. The City and Project site are located in the seismically active Southern California region. The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within Page 9 of 55 this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fault. All of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south of this zone and not within it. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and development plans, would be required. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have less than a significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. While there is no way to avoid ground shaking and earthquake hazards, compliance with CBC requirements, including specific provisions for seismic design, would mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes on new future construction. The Project would require that future developments be designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking. Geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as well as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 in the Initial Study) are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, and 8 in the Initial Study) do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone. Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements that existed at the time of development. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies and would be constructed in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure. The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level. Seal Beach is relatively flat with an average elevation of 15 feet above sea level and the highest point reaching approximately 70 feet above sea level, as such, there are no hills (typically considered to be over 100 feet above the average elevation) or mountains adjacent to them, though the area backing up to Housing Opportunity Site 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 8 in the Initial Study) is often referred to as a “hill,” by Seal Beach residents. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork; however, mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact GEO-b: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Onsite soils during Project implementation and construction can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be Page 10 of 55 implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP would be required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading, limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future developments resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize potential soil erosion impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact GEO-c: The Project would not 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. The General Plan identifies that the City’s Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City’s Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports would be required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact GEO-d: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report and geotechnical evaluations as required by Municipal Code Chapter 9.50.020. Recommendations in the geotechnical reports would be required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future developments resulting from Project implementations. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with CBC guidelines and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With implementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. Impact GEO-e: The Project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The General Plan identifies the City as completely “built out” and necessary infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands for projects within the City. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no impact. Page 11 of 55 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-a: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. During the construction phase, limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used, including standard construction materials such as concrete, paints, solvents, and heavy construction equipment which would contain diesel fuels and oils. The use of hazardous materials during construction would be limited and temporary. Project construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies relating to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, impacts during construction would be less than significant. The use of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be limited to those commonly found at facilities such as solvents, cleaners, paints; chlorine and other chemicals for pool maintenance; and pesticides for landscape maintenance activities. These common household hazardous materials would be used in limited quantities and would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project operation would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-b: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. During construction activities, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. Future Project implementation would establish additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. Common materials associated with residential uses include small quantity hazardous material, such as cleaners and pesticides. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-c: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. With the exception of two Housing Opportunity Sites, all other Housing Opportunity Sites are located more than one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 8 in the Initial Study, respectively) are each located within one-quarter mile of McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. Construction activities required for future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of Page 12 of 55 hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste, and emissions to minimize the potential for hazardous emissions to occur. Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-d: The Project would not 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. The Housing Opportunity Sites are not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List). Several hazardous sites are identified within the City and individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, review of GeoTracker on March 14, 2025 demonstrates that Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) was identified as an open site assessment in April 2024. Files available for review on GeoTracker identity the site as a Cleanup Program Site under Orange County Lead Oversight Program and the site’s 2013 Phase I ESA notes oil use and storage to formerly occur onsite, along with aboveground storage tanks and piping. Compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation would be required prior to issuance of building permits. Furthermore, any future developments resulting from any of the Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, or the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If the Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation of a Phase II ESA, which would consist of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement the recommendations included in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building permits. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at the local, state, and federal levels would be required. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future developments resulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of ESAs, impacts would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-f: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. All future developments resulting from Project implementation would Page 13 of 55 be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority’s (OCFA’s) Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. Impact HAZ-g: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City’s EOP and LHMP. Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-a: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. With the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements. Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater system. The City’s General Plan Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of NPDES programs. Additionally, Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. Any future developments associated with Project implementation that would disturb one acre or more of land would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and all relevant NPDES requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the Page 14 of 55 implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), are developed areas; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact HYD-c: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in: i) substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), the Housing Opportunity Sites identified under the Project are already developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments and therefore, future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would be anticipated to utilize the existing drainage facilities in the City consistent with the existing sites. Project implementation would require construction activities that could result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. The Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, Page 15 of 55 incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Future development projects would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, including standard erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the risk of polluted runoff resulting from increased erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include an erosion control plan that identifies measures, such as diverting runoff from disturbed areas and treatment measures to trap sediment, to ensure there is no polluted runoff. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant. 9. Land Use and Planning Impact LU-a: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low- and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would occur within areas that are already developed and would not occur within any existing residential communities that could be divided. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites occur in a variety of locations throughout the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in division of established communities, and this impact would be less than significant. 10. Minerals Impact MIN-a: The Project would not 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. The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area of locally important mineral resources. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas and the Housing Opportunity Sites do not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources and there would be no impact. Impact MIN-b: The Project would not 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. The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas, which include Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach National Wildfire Refuge. Housing Opportunity Site 3 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 4 in the Initial Study) is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch, and is located approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known Page 16 of 55 or designated mineral resources. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not have potential impacts associated with the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site and there would be no impact. 11. Population and Housing Impact POP-b: The Project would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by evaluating sites across the City that have the potential to develop new residential units. The purpose of the environmental review is to address the potential impacts resulting from buildout. However, the Project itself does not directly result in the development of any residential units. As such, certification of the Project would not lead to the construction of new residential units. Instead, certification of the Project allows for changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the sites. Therefore, since the Project does not directly result in any new construction or development implementation would not require relocation of existing developments. However, if development or redevelopment at the Housing Opportunity Sites is proposed on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur. The Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future developments resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant. 12. Public Services Impact PUB-a: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for the following public services: schools or other public facilities. As stated in the Housing Element Update, Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Currently, a majority of the City’s K-12 student population need to travel outside the City to attend school, and Los Alamitos Unified School District is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos Unified School District schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact mitigation fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would also be required to comply with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. Therefore, with the payment of required fees and incorporation of General Plan policies, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Other public facilities within the City include two County libraries. Project implementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet Page 17 of 55 its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for public facilities. The Leisure World Library, a privately funded and maintained library, is located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is available to residents and visitors to Leisure World. The Leisure World Library is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result of future Project implementation. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the General Plan that states that consistency with the County’s Growth Management Plan would ensure adequate library services are provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 13. Transportation and Circulation Impact TRANS-c: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines, as well as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Roadway Design Manual, in addition to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact TRANS-d: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City which could result in inadequate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project are not designed to City standards and requirements. As such, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features, which would be made in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. 14. Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-d: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2022 the City’s residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually. According to the California Department of Finance, as of January 2024, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.8 persons per household. Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide a maximum of 1,733 additional dwelling units to the City, the 1,733 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,191 people. Using Page 18 of 55 the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21,130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of 28,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually. Consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 1383, all dwelling units or complexes would be required to recycle food scraps and yard waste into green products with the goal of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. The additional dwelling units would be constructed over time resulting in a small increase year over year to existing solid waste generation and would be expected to generate less solid waste due to SB 1383 Therefore the increase in solid waste from the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. Impact UTIL-e: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would comply with the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation are constructed and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant. 15. Wildfire Impact WF-a: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. Page 19 of 55 Impact WF-b: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project proposes a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income housing, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. None of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA would minimize impacts resulting from Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development would not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding. Impact WF-c: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for new development and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development. Associated infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with City and County requirements and regulations and would be required to adhere to the measures in the individual requirements for new infrastructure to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact. Impact WF-d: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. With the implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impacts from wildfires would occur. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 16. Aesthetics Impact AES-1: The Project is in an urbanized area, and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Implementation of the Project would result in the identification of parcels located within the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the City to meet its RHNA. Implementation of the Project would also result in the creation of a new zoning designation, rezoning of several identified Housing Opportunity Sites, and implementation of the Main Street Program allowing for housing on the second floor of commercial buildings. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur on these sites at this time. The Project does not propose Housing Page 20 of 55 Opportunity Sites on land that provides scenic resources or scenic vistas. The Project actions would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites. As the Project does not propose any specific site development at this time, the proposed rezoning of the six Housing Opportunity Sites identified would not result in conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The remaining two Housing Opportunity Sites are not proposed to be rezoned and are proposed to be developed in the future in accordance with the existing zoning designations and development standards of the site, including those that govern scenic quality. Future developments proposed within the Main Street Program area would also be required to be developed in accordance with the development standards and regulations governing scenic quality outlined in the Main Street Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance. Individual future developments under the Project must comply with the City’s objective design criteria to ensure that proposed individual developments would be developed in accordance with design and zoning standards and existing regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality and would not be anticipated to construct new structures that would be incompatible with the existing surrounding visual character. The Project’s new zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, zoning code, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. Future development projects proposed under the Housing Element Update may deviate from certain development standards of the applicable zoning designations or utilize state housing laws and programs, such as the State density bonus program, resulting in taller buildings and high-density developments. However, future developments would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and subject to the City’s objective design criteria, design requirements of the Main Street Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and applicable General Plan policies to ensure future development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Unless exempt, future developments proposed under the Housing Element Update would also be subject to subsequent environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. 17. Air Quality Impact AQ-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Construction activities facilitated by the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with diesel-fueled equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. Construction of all future developments facilitated by the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. The Project entails development of residential uses and would not involve any of the land uses identified to result in odor complaints nor involve any components with the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finally, SCAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402, Nuisance. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made during implementation of the Project, the SCAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated. The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Page 21 of 55 18. Biological Resources Impact BIO-2: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Though sensitive communities are identified within a 10-mile radius of the Project area, there are no sensitive natural communities located within any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. As stated in the DEIR, Housing Opportunity Site 8 is the only identified site that has undeveloped areas and the primary land cover at the Housing Opportunity Site 8 is ruderal herbaceous with interspersed trees and disturbed/developed including a paved parking area and handball court. Though Housing Opportunity Site 8 provides some undeveloped areas, the site does not include any sensitive natural communities. Additionally, though all Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area contain trees that could be used as potential nesting habitat by bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the potential nesting habitat for birds do not constitute a sensitive natural community. Therefore, future development projects located within any Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area are not anticipated to result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, there would be no impact. Impact BIO-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. As stated in the DEIR, there are no wetlands located within any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. However, there are wetlands and water resources mapped near the Project area. The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area. The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World. The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from each Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. As the Los Alamitos Channel is located offsite of Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is separated from the site by a paved EVA access lane, future development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 is not anticipated to result in impacts to the Los Alamitos Channel. Additionally, the propensity of the Los Alamitos Channel to support special-status species and include wildlife habitat is limited as the Los Alamitos Channel is a concrete lined channel. Therefore, future development projects located within the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area would not result in adverse effects to protected wetlands and impacts would be less than significant. Impact BIO-4: The Project would not 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 native wildlife nursery sites. As identified in the DEIR, the Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement. Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the sites, the sites do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area do not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage. There are no known bird or bat migratory corridors that would be directly impeded by the Project. Large concentrations of migratory wildlife are not known to utilize any specific portion of the Page 22 of 55 proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area and Project activities are not expected to preclude use of the area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of wildlife species or with a migratory wildlife corridor and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact. Impact BIO-5: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Orange County General Plan, City of Seal Beach General Plan, and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)/Caltrans Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan were all reviewed and the Project would not conflict with any of these plans or other City of Seal Beach ordinances. Therefore, there would be no impact. 19. Energy Impact EN-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Overall, construction activities associated with each Housing Opportunity Site and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels and electricity from electric vehicles. However, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with each future development facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. The new dwelling units construction under the Project would require energy for normal operations. Building energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout. It is noted that all future buildings would be constructed in compliance with the energy efficiency standards set forth in the California Building Standards Code that is applicable at the time of construction. As the California Building Standards Code will likely require more efficient design measures in the future, the Project’s total energy consumption is not anticipated to result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Additionally, though full buildout of the Project would result in transportation fuel consumption, the Project is not anticipated to result in vehicle use that is any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other vehicle uses in the region. Both construction and operations of future developments facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Impact EN-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. All developments facilitated by the Project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Local regulations have been developed in accordance with federal and state energy regulations, such as the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CalGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743, which are also aimed at reducing energy consumption. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Page 23 of 55 20. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The Project would not, 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, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1 – High Noise Impact) for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB). However, Housing Opportunity Site 5 and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are located within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact 2 – Moderate Noise Impact). According to the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), residential uses are considered “conditionally consistent” within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour and it is recommended that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP identifies that the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the California Building Code requirements. Future developments proposed under the Project that are exposed to existing or projected noise, including aircraft noise, that exceeds noise standards identified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific acoustical study and identify mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element and preparing an acoustical study would minimize potential impacts and ensure that future developments within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies. Based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites, including the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, are located within the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB, which are areas designated as having the potential for extreme crash hazard. As such, the Project would not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Most of the Project, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the portion of the Main Street Specific Plan area located south of Electric Avenue, are located within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Generally, projects within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB that include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above mean sea level require filing with the FAA and review by the ALUC. Based on the proposed zoning districts for the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program), building heights are anticipated to range from two to five stories and therefore filing with the FAA regarding aircraft-related safety hazards is not anticipated. The Project and future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB and therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area and the impact would be less than significant. 21. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. A significant impact would occur if future developments under the Project resulted in a net reduction in the Page 24 of 55 groundwater supply or lower the groundwater table. Future development facilitated by the Project would likely be located within developed areas of the City and would not be anticipated to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the entirety of the Main Street Specific Plan area have been developed with impervious surfaces and do not provide groundwater recharge potential. The Housing Opportunity Sites that do contain pervious surfaces may provide some opportunity for groundwater recharge; however, as these areas are extremely small, is not within the basin recharge area, and the Santa Ana River base flow and recycled water are identified as the largest sources of groundwater recharge for the basin, development of these pervious areas would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge potential. The City utilizes groundwater to supply potable water to the City. As identified in the DEIR, based on Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MET’s) reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and Basin Production Percentage (BPP) establishment for both the City and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) the following year that future developments under the Project is developed. As such, the Project would not result in significant increases in groundwater supplies. Though the Project itself does not propose any specific developments at this time and approval of this Project would not result in the construction of new development, the Project would facilitate the ability for new developments to be proposed and constructed within the City. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant. Impact HYD-3: The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites as well as the Main Street Program area are located within areas identified as Zone X with reduced flood risk due to levees. Therefore, these sites would not be located in a flood hazard zone and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. However, a small portion of Housing Opportunity Site 5 is located within areas identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Additionally, due to the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City is at risk of tsunamis. The City’s General Plan Safety Element identified that the risk of inundation by a tsunami appears to be low; however, if an earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of high inundation level could be expected. The DEIR identified that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements would reduce impacts of flooding on future development projects facilitated by the Project to less than significant. As all future development projects would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards, the future developments would be anticipated to be constructed to withstand any potential flooding impacts and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. Future developments located in flood risk or tsunami risk areas would be anticipated to be constructed to be located above the anticipated flood elevation. Additionally, as identified in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, seismically induced seiches are not considered a potential hazard for the City. With minimal potential for inundation by flood, low likelihood of inundation by tsunamis, and no potential for inundation by a seiche, there would be little potential for future development sites to release pollutants into water resulting from inundation. Therefore, the Project Page 25 of 55 would have a less than significant impact related to releasing pollutants during inundation of future project sites. Impact HYD-4: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The City’s water quality control plan is the Basin Plan prepared by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Future residential developments facilitated by the Project would be required to implement and comply with the Basin Plan to ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Additionally, implementation of City standards and requirements would ensure that future developments comply with the Basin Plan. With adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, runoff associated with both construction and regular operation of future developments facilitated by the Project would not violate any water quality control standards or any water quality control plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, any future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the goals and objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan to ensure that construction and operation of the future project would not result in groundwater impacts. As future developments would be anticipated to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant. 22. Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As analyzed in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the RHNA allocation for the City as the increase in dwelling units resulting from the Project would be required in order to meet the state mandated allocation. The Project would also be consistent with the policies of Connect SoCal 2024 which is a long-range blueprint that guides transportation investments and land-use decisions through 2050 while meeting the requirements of California’s SB 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a SCS to accommodate future population growth and reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks. Additionally, the City is currently preparing a Local Costal Plan (LCP), including a Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan, which are planning documents used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission for the purpose of upholding the California Coastal Act. Some of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the coastal zone identified in the Draft Land Use Plan and therefore, should development at these sites be proposed prior to certification of an LCP, the Coastal Commission would review development applications to determine consistency with the California Coastal Act. Should the City achieve certification of an LCP, proposed development would need to comply with the regulations, standards, and requirements within the LCP. The Project has been developed in accordance with existing City regulations, policies, and plans and implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with existing City regulations, policies, and plans adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Page 26 of 55 23. Noise Impact NOI-3: For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. This includes noise generated from aircraft flyovers. The City’s General Plan Noise Element states “all new residential projects to be constructed near existing non-transportation noise sources (including, but not limited to commercial facilities, public parks with sports activities) must demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a Registered Engineer that the indoor noise levels will be consistent with the limits contained in the noise ordinance.” Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure and compliance with the City’s requirements for preparation of an acoustical study would reduce potential impacts and the Project would result in a less than significant impact. 24. Population and Housing Impact POP-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Implementation of the Project would provide for the development of additional dwelling units in the City resulting in an increase in the City’s population. Both the maximum and realistic buildout potential analyzed in the DEIR was identified to result in growth that would exceed the City’s population projection of 25,400 for 2045. However, the purpose of the Housing Element Update is to plan for and promote housing growth within the City to meet the housing needs of the region and state. While the scenarios exceed the population projections identified by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), it is important to note that the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element Update does not mean that they will be developed at the estimated unit counts or level of affordability. Several laws passed in recent years, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), aim to address the need for more housing and expedite approvals for housing projects in order to respond to the state’s housing crisis. Implementation of the Project and future developments consistent with the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the City. As such, the Housing Element Update is the City’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Page 27 of 55 25. Public Services Impact PUB-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: fire protection or police protection. While no specific developments are proposed by the Project, implementation of the Project would increase the potential for housing development in the City. Future development of housing facilitated by the Project would increase the number of residents in the City under build out conditions analyzed in the DEIR, and would increase demand for fire and police protection services and thus, the potential need for additional facilities. The increase in population as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be expected to generate more service calls. New fire and police personnel, vehicles, and equipment may be required to provide adequate response times to serve future developments. However, the additional personnel and materials costs would likely be gradual as the increase in population would occur incrementally over time. All identified Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area are located within highly urbanized areas of the City already served by existing fire and police services and therefore, as the Project would be located within the existing service boundaries for fire and police protection, the Project is anticipated to be serviced by existing fire and police station without additional new facilities needing to be built. To reduce the demand of fire protection services, future developments proposed under the Project would need to comply with the City’s and OCFA’s fire safety requirements, which include compliance with the California Fire Code and the CBC, site plan review and approval by the City and OCFA, and final inspection conducted by the City and OCFA to ensure adequate fire safety measures are implemented prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. The need for additional or expansion of existing fire and police protection facilities as a result of future discretionary developments would need to go under CEQA review at a project-specific level. In the event new fire or police protection facilities are required, they would be disclosed and mitigated, as feasible, at a project-specific level. Compliance with requirements for individual project-specific CEQA review, City fire safety requirements, California Fire Code and the CBC requirements would reduce the impacts related to fire and police protection services to less than significant. The potential impacts on fire and police protection services generated by the Project will be less than significant. 26. Transportation Impact TRANS-1: The Project would not conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project does not include site specific designs showing driveway locations and, therefore, there are no specific details to review and assess direct impacts on the circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. As part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to review their project’s per the City’s circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Page 28 of 55 Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards. Furthermore, new development under the Project would need to comply with Transportation Impact Fees which fund the planning, design, development, and construction of transportation facilities reasonably necessary to serve new development. As individual development proposals under the Housing Element Update would be evaluated individually for consistency with Orange County and City of Seal Beach plans including the Congestion Management Program, OCTA’s Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan, the impact of implementing the Project would be less than significant. 27. Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. As identified in the DEIR, the WSA prepared for the Project identified that based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an increase in supply would be required to meet these demands. The WSA identified that the two water service provider’s (the City and GSWC) projected water supplies identified in their respective 2020 UWMPs would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project. However, each retail water supplier would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchases. Additionally, as the Project’s future development projects would be built out incrementally over time, the Project’s projected additional demands would be accounted for during water service coordination and establishment for the following year. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to water supplies. Impact UTIL-3: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. For proposed development (ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project), wastewater generation is estimated to increase by 26,720 gpd and 49,468 gpd (Lampson EIR) respectively. Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve these and the conceptual future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed. The impacts posed by the Project and cumulative projects are site specific and may impact the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of those projects only. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects are not anticipated due to the proximity of the cumulative developments to the Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. A standalone EIR was prepared for the Lampson Project (SCH. No. 2022090476) and identified less than significant impacts to the wastewater infrastructure from the Lampson Project. However, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects may result in deficiencies to the exiting wastewater infrastructure. Future impacts shall be analyzed at the time of project specific evaluation. 28. Cumulative Impacts Aesthetics: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics, light, or glare. Development in Seal Beach facilitated by the Project in conjunction with buildout of cumulative projects Page 29 of 55 in the City and surrounding areas could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although visual quality could improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and vacant sites. Implementation of the Project would encourage increased housing development at sites already developed with other uses. Anticipated Project related impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development allowed per existing regulations, is expected to increase housing development citywide in already developed areas. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative developments could result in impacts to aesthetics. However, similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with existing regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding aesthetic impacts and protecting visual quality. Cumulative developments would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building standards and regulations adopted by the City including, but not limited to, building heights and outdoor lighting regulations. Potential aesthetic impacts of future developments facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each discretionary cumulative development project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts related to aesthetics and identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant cumulative aesthetic impact and the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact. Energy: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy. Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in increased energy consumption within the City. Potential impacts related to energy resources from future developments that are facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require applications for development permits that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, any future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743. Consequently, any future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to energy resources. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. The geographic scope of impacts for hazards is limited to the specific project site. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. However, indirect cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur where regional development patterns place structures and/or people in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions, or where regional patterns develop new cumulatively hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. As identified in the DEIR, all cumulative developments identified and listed are residential projects and therefore, would not develop new hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. Hazardous Page 30 of 55 materials utilized during operation of the cumulative developments would be anticipated to be limited to those typical to residential uses and would not be anticipated to require the use of large quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally, all cumulative developments are located within urbanized areas and would not be located on sites that are in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions. Anticipated impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development within and within proximity of the City, may include future development in areas that are at risk of hazards such as from the nearby airport. Similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential adverse site-specific impacts and require mitigation measures as necessary in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. All potential impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. Therefore, with the implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and existing plans and policies, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Land Use and Planning: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in cumulative impacts on land use and planning. The Project’s anticipated impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and directly adjacent to the City, would increase the allowance for additional housing stock in already developed areas. Potential land use impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and review under CEQA, which would address any potential land use impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Housing Element Update identifies future implementation actions to increase housing capacity to accommodate the City’s assigned RHNA pursuant to state, regional, and local growth projections. Therefore, future developments that are facilitated by the Housing Element Update in conjunction with cumulative developments would not result in significant land use impacts. Furthermore, unless exempt, future developments pursuant to the Housing Element Update and General Plan would be subject to discretionary permits and CEQA evaluation. Cumulative developments would be reviewed by the City under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as with a state or local plan, ordinance, or regulatory standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing an environmental impact. Any significant conflicts would be mitigated or resolved through the City discretional review and approval. Therefore, the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use and planning. Noise: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on noise. The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the immediate project vicinity. If cumulative projects were to have the same construction schedule and timeline as the adjacent Housing Opportunity Site, then there could be a cumulatively considerable increase in construction noise in the area resulting in Page 31 of 55 potential impacts. However, as future development of Housing Opportunity Sites is currently speculative and there is no timeline for actual buildout for any of Housing Opportunity Sites, it is currently not feasible to predict whether construction noise from buildout of the cumulative projects would combine with construction noise from buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites in a manner that could result in significant impacts. Buildout of future developments facilitated by the Project and cumulative developments would be required to comply with and adhere to the City’s construction noise ordinances and requirements to minimize impacts. The Housing Element Update’s anticipated noise and vibration-related impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would increase housing development in an already developed area, thereby resulting in increased ambient noise levels. Potential noise and vibration-related impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would verify compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and address potential noise and vibration impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development are not anticipated to result in significant noise and vibration impacts, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing excessive noise, following compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable noise or vibration impact, and no mitigation is required. Population and Housing: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on population and housing. The list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas include those in the City of Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Westminster, and nearby unincorporated Orange County. Included in this list are candidate sites identified in the Housing Element Update for Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County for potential future development. Development of these sites would be within the planned growth identified by SCAG for the region and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Similar to the City, all jurisdictions within the SCAG region are required to prepare a Housing Element Update that identifies sites within its jurisdictional boundaries for future residential development to accommodate its respective RHNA. Implementation of each respective Housing Element Update and future developments consistent with the Housing Element Update would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the region. As such, the Housing Element Update for each jurisdiction would be the jurisdiction’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth. The combination of the cumulative developments outlined in the DEIR proposes the development of a total of 1,773 dwelling units. However, out of the total units proposed by the cumulative developments, only 1,67 dwelling units are actually currently proposed undergoing environmental review. The remaining 1,606 dwelling units are proposed only as a conceptual development for buildout as part of a Housing Element Update or as a potential future project. Development of the currently proposed undergoing environmental review and already approved developments would lead to direct population growth. However, the impacts of the growth have already been analyzed or is currently being analyzed in its project-specific Page 32 of 55 environmental analysis. The Housing Element Update would provide for a planned increase in the City’s housing capacity to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The Housing Element Update does not propose any housing development at this time. Instead, the Housing Element Update identifies a series of implementation actions to facilitate future housing development, as necessary to meet the City’s housing obligations per state law. Unless exempt, future developments facilitated by the Project, as well as cumulative projects, would be subject to discretionary permits from the City or other local decision-making agency, and would be required to undergo applicable CEQA review and be analyzed for its compliance with City or other municipal requirements before their approval. This would ensure that any potential environmental effects stemming from their development would be minimized to the extent feasible. As the Project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing and the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing. Utilities and Service Systems: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems. Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects like the ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project, would increase housing development and could result in increased water demands requiring additional water supply and increased wastewater generation. It is estimated that water demands would increase by 42 AF and 51 AF (Lampson EIR), respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project. Wastewater generation is estimated to increase by 26,720 gpd and 49,468 gpd (Lampson EIR) respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project. Including the Project, the additional water demand from the cumulative developments equates to a total water demand increase of 498 AF during normal years. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD it is anticipated that these demands can be met with the established BPP and imported water purchases from MWDOC at the time of project development and will have a less than significant impact. Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed. Regarding utility and service system facilities, the potential for cumulative impacts in conjunction with cumulative development is not anticipated. The impacts posed by the Project and cumulative projects are site specific and may impact the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of those projects only. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects are not anticipated due to the proximity of the cumulative developments to the Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. A standalone EIR was prepared for the Lampson Project (SCH. No. 2022090476) and identified less than significant impacts to the wastewater infrastructure from the Lampson Project. The cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects may result in deficiencies to the exiting wastewater infrastructure. Future impacts shall be analyzed at the time of project specific evaluation. Page 33 of 55 B. Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts The following potential environmental impacts of the Project were determined to be potentially significant and to require mitigation measures to avoid their effects or to reduce their severity, as set forth in Chapter 3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such potentially significant impacts. Environmental Impact Report 29. Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species Workers, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Mitigation Plan, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact BIO-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact BIO-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and BIO-2 would minimize impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species and ensure that project design or avoidance mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of applicable preconstruction surveys for construction activities that would occur during the nesting season and requires appropriate minimization measures be implemented if active nests are found within the project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to listed or special-status plants and wildlife to a less than significant level. 30. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact CUL-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the City to determine whether the project applicant is required to conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impact on historical resources prior to approval of discretionary projects and preparation of Historical Resource Evaluation Report if the City determines the project requires further study. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and this would be accomplished by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. Page 34 of 55 Impact CUL-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources and CUL-3: Human Remains will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact CUL-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL- 2, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require the City to conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location and if it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources prior to approval of discretionary projects. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 outlines requirements to be followed if human remains are found during construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. 31. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact GEO-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires preparation of a paleontological monitoring program for each future development to ensure that potential impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources are reduced. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project- specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO- 1 would ensure that potential future developments that results from implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. 32. Greenhouse Gas Emission Impact GHG-2: The Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-2: The DEIR evaluated the Project consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 RTP/SCS which were both adopted for the purpose of Page 35 of 55 reducing GHG emissions. The Project was determined to have the potential to conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project was determined to be consistent with the applicable strategies recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan and with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG- 1, the Project was considered consistent with the overarching goals of Connect SoCal 2024. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. 33. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-2: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; iii) 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; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact HYD-2: Site-specific drainage reports to evaluate hydrological impacts would be prepared as individual developments are proposed on individual Housing Opportunity Sites. However, the development of some of the Housing Opportunity Sites may result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns of the site or area and have potential adverse effects on existing surface drainage patterns caused by the creation of new impervious surfaces. Additionally, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified sites may result in flooding related impacts due to the existing drainage system in the City not providing adequate capacity. The potential impacts would be minimized through compliance with City Municipal Code requirements and General Plan policies related to construction and post-construction stormwater controls and measures for minimizing erosion and stormwater runoff. As the City already has existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City, future development projects facilitated by the Project could contribute to the existing issues and could result in increased impacts. Therefore, the Project identified Mitigation Measure HYD-1 to reduce potential impacts which would require future development projects facilitated by the Project to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impact the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure or fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, Project impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. 34. Noise Impact NOI-1: The Project could result in a generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Page 36 of 55 Findings Regarding Impact NOI-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact NOI-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require Project applicants to describe and commit to a noise mitigation plan that would be developed when the individual project information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures to be implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the impact of construction noise would be less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. Impact NOI-2: The Project could result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact NOI-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact NOI-2, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require Project applicants to prepare a noise and vibration analysis prior to issuance of a building permit to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to construction activities for projects that require pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. 35. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TRIB-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements and TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact TRIB-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures TRC-1 and TCR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRIB- 1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would require any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area to consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative, and Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would ensure inadvertent discovery procedures are followed in the event previously undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources are found at the project site. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Page 37 of 55 36. Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-1: The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact UTIL-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact UTIL-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would ensure that if improvements such as upsizing distribution mains or constructing new public distribution mains are needed due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the future development project site location, the proposed future development project would be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIl-1, potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. 37. Cumulative Impacts Biological Resources: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Mitigation Plan, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Biological Resources Impact: Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and nearby areas, would increase development in ruderal and developed/disturbed areas and could result in impacts to biological resources. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area provide limited value as wildlife corridors due to their proximity to previous developments; however, some sites are in close proximity to natural areas, which could function as a wildlife corridor and could be impacted by future development. Therefore, potential biological impacts would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Though the City and majority of the surrounding areas are highly urbanized and disturbed, some cumulative developments identified may be located on sites that are less disturbed and could have the potential to provide habitat for wildlife. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary permit approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential biological resource impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the violation of biological resource requirements, the taking of special-status plants or wildlife, or degradation of wildlife corridors. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. Page 38 of 55 Cultural Resources: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources, CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources, and CUL-3: Human Remains will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would substantially lessen the severity of cultural resources impact. The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the project site. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 to ensure unknown and undiscovered cultural resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential historical and archaeological impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Each cumulative project would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures as those identified for the Project to reduce potential project specific impacts to cultural resources. Accordingly, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources. Geology and Soils: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Geology and Soils (Paleontological) Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would substantially lessen the severity of paleontological resources impact. The geographic scope of the cumulative paleontological resources analysis is the project site. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts concerning geology, soils, and paleontological resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to ensure unknown and undiscovered paleontological resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Cumulative developments would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Accordingly, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on geology and soils. Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impact: Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development could increase stormwater runoff such that water quality impacts could occur. Cumulative developments may reconfigure the drainage basin for the City. However, Page 39 of 55 new development and redevelopment within the City would be subject to City, state, and federal policies and ordinances, design, guidelines, the Zoning Code, and other applicable regulatory requirements that reduce impacts related to water quality on a project-by-project basis. Overall, implementation of the Project and cumulative developments would not result in substantial groundwater use within the entire groundwater basin or affect groundwater recharge; and would not modify the course of an existing stream or river. Required conformance with state and local policies and regulations would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts associated with future cumulative development. The anticipated Project related impacts from future housing development facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and its vicinity, would include increased development in a previously developed area (changes in impermeable surfaces) and could result in impacts to water quality. Potential impacts concerning hydrology and water quality would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed including in accordance with the Housing Element Update. As required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. For the ORCC Project, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Consequently, future housing development facilitated by the Project and cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative impacts concerning violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, decreased groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, alterations to existing drainage patterns, or conflicts with water quality or groundwater plans. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning hydrology and water resources. Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements and TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and TCR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of tribal cultural resources impact. Based on tribal consultation, research, and the pre- contact context, the area within this Project area of analysis may contain tribal cultural resources that have not been documented or recorded. Additionally, the City is identified to be located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources. Therefore, there is potential for land within cumulative development areas to contain tribal cultural resources that are not yet known. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are site-specific and development on cumulative project sites could result in impacts as the cumulative developments are located within the same geographic context for potential tribal cultural resources. The Project and other developments in the City and surrounding communities have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. However, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level related to tribal cultural resources. Page 40 of 55 Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential tribal cultural resources impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Cumulative developments would be anticipated to require and implement mitigation measures similar to those identified for the Project to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to tribal cultural resources. C. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following potential environmental impacts of the Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures to reduce their severity, as set forth in Chapter 3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such significant and unavoidable impacts. 38. Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact AQ-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ- 1, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. Construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project are anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even with the implementation of mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ-2: The Project would 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. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact AQ-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ- 1 and AQ-2 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ- 2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. Construction activities facilitated by the Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. Buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissions-intensive buildout out of the eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, was identified to potentially Page 41 of 55 generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD mass daily thresholds for VOC. Since the largest Housing Opportunity site exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, other sites may result in potentially significant emissions due to a more intensive construction timeline, additional demolition and grading, or additional construction trips. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify construction emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, including through the use of super-compliant VOC coatings. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction exhaust emissions, potential future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction. As a result, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact from construction of the Project remains significant and unavoidable. Emissions during operation of the Project would be generated primarily from resident vehicle trips to and from the sites (mobile sources). In addition, the buildout facilitated by the Project would generate emissions from area sources, which include the use of fireplaces, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and others. Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required. However, even with mitigation, operational emissions of VOC would exceed the threshold of significance. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions, cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ-3: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ- 3: Construction Health Risk Assessment will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact AQ-3: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ-3, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. During construction associated with the Project, the potential exists for emissions of fugitive dust, Valley fever, NOA, and DPM to be released. Most of the fugitive dust generated during construction activities would remain localized and would be deposited near each construction site. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, limits the discharge of PM emissions and establishes Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction activities. Consistent with the SCAQMD Best Available Control Measures, construction of each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to use water trucks to stabilize soils. In addition, the City of Seal Beach is generally built out; therefore, much of the development facilitated by the Project would occur in urban areas where conditions are generally not dry, dusty, or windy. As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, development of each future development projects subject to discretionary approval shall evaluate their individual construction emissions. If the future development project is determined to result in PM emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, then minimization measures would be incorporated to reduce PM emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Overall, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in sensitive receptor exposure to substantial Page 42 of 55 concentrations of fugitive dust. Many of the future development projects on Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program facilitated by the Project would entail demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate new housing. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material” unless proven otherwise. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, would ensure that any ACBMs encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately, and risks to existing sensitive receptors would not occur. SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. Thresholds were established based on an individual project’s size, location, and distance to receptors. However, SCAQMD established in the PEIR for the 2016 AQMP that the LST screening methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as local general plans, specific plans, or air quality plans since the individual project plans are typically not known at plan adoption. Therefore, since the analysis is evaluating the buildout of the Housing Element Update, a localized construction analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project would be required to quantify the individual construction emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds. Exposure to DPM from diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment can result in health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites would be the most susceptible to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable. Based on the analysis in the DEIR, during construction, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the impact would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. However, the impact may remain significant and unavoidable. 39. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding GHG-1: Buildout of the future developments facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operations. Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The Project could generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which provides a menu of GHG reduction measures, would Page 43 of 55 reduce GHG impacts, the Project would still result in emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. 40. Public Services Impact PUB-1: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: Parks. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact PUB-1 (parks): Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact PUB-1 (parks), such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010 includes the Seal Beach Park Dedication Ordinance which requires five acres of parkland to be located within the City per 1,000 residents. As identified by the City, the City currently has a parks ratio of 3.35 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements for parkland and is at a deficit for parkland. Projected growth as a result of the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland to be developed further increasing the deficit of the City. Thus, the future developments facilitated by the Project would result in the need for new additional park facilities. The Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal. The City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the City adopting its parks standard. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in impacts to parks. Future development of identified Housing Opportunity Sites as well as new developments within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review to analyze its potential impacts to park facilities. If impacts to parks are identified during individual environmental review, mitigation of impacts would be required, as feasible, at a project-specific level. In addition, future residential developments would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which requires new developments to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities as a condition of tentative map approval. Future developments proposed under the Project’s compliance with requirements for individual project specific environmental review and compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, would reduce potential impacts related to park facilities. Additionally, Mitigation Measure PUB-1 was identified to ensure that project-specific impacts resulting from individual development projects facilitated by the Project would be reduced and mitigated to the extent feasible. However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements and there are limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand Page 44 of 55 that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial impacts to parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 41. Recreation Impact REC-1: The Project would 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. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact REC-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact REC-1, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Project does not propose any development. However, the Housing Element Update would identify a series of implementation actions to increase housing capacity that would induce population growth in the City. Future developments facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth, would incrementally increase the City’s demand for park and recreation land. The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, requires provision of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project analyzed in the DEIR would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The forecasted population growth could also incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. The Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the statewide standards or reach the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal. The City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in the overuse of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. Future developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would result in further impacts to parks and recreational facilities beyond the existing conditions. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, as a condition of tentative map approval, any future developments and the subdivider would be required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Any fees contributed would be required to be used for either acquiring land or developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreational opportunities would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, and the dedication of land and payment of fees would reduce potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities. However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the park acreage standards set by the General Plan and there is limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Page 45 of 55 Project. Therefore, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Impact REC-2: The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact REC-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact REC-2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. As concluded in REC-1 above, the Project’s maximum buildout scenario would create a demand for park and recreation land of approximately 14.46 acres. As the City’s existing parks acreage does not meet the applicable standard of five acres per 1,000 people, and due to the limited land available for development within the City, sufficient excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the increased demand that may be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, the increase in residents resulting from future developments under the Project would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which could result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Future construction or expansion of recreational facilities required as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to complete applicable environmental review at a project specific level to determine the potential impacts that would result from construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As outlined in Mitigation Measure PUB-1, all future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which as a condition of tentative map approval, requires any future developments and subdivider to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreation would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents and would reduce potential impacts. Future developments facilitated by the Project would require construction or expansion of recreational facilities in the future which may have an adverse effect on the environment and therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 42. Transportation Impact TRANS-2: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact TRANS-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRANS-2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. City criteria states that residential home-based VMT per capita constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than the baseline citywide average residential home-based VMT per capita. VMT estimates were obtained from OCTAM 5 for each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. The VMT analysis Page 46 of 55 shows that each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program could exceed the citywide average home-based VMT per capita by up to approximately 30 percent. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact. As outlined by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, at the time of application for development, each site would be responsible for providing a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines and would be responsible for identifying appropriate TDM measures to reduce VMT. Though implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would be anticipated to reduce impacts, the effectiveness of the measures in reducing an individual project’s potential VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined at the level of detail provided by a program document such as the DEIR. Therefore, based on the information available at this time, which does not include sufficient detail to determine specific mitigation measures and their effect on a site-by-site basis, even with implementation of mitigation measures the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. 43. Cumulative Impacts Air Quality: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to air quality. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ- 3: Construction Health Risk Assessment will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Air Quality Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would not substantially lessen the severity of air quality impacts due to the uncertain future buildout scenario of the Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 requires preparation and submittal of technical air quality assessments estimating project construction- and operation-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires preparation and submittal of a construction health risk assessment to the City for review and approval prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects. Implementation of the Project, including future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline site, and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in emissions of pollutants from construction and operations. Additionally, the SCAB has been designated as a non- attainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. The existing non-attainment status of the SCAB is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB as well as pollutant transport from surrounding areas. Potential land use impacts are site-specific and would require evaluation of future housing development on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential air quality impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. While some future development projects may not result in a significant impact, as discussed above, other future development projects would result in emissions that are considered significant. Consequently, future developments facilitated by the Project could result in Page 47 of 55 significant environmental impacts from pollutant emissions and may conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing pollutant emissions. Therefore, the Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, could result a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emission Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative GHG impacts. Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development could increase GHG emissions. Global GHG emissions are inherently a cumulative issue that is understood for CEQA purposes to be an existing significant and adverse condition. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Although the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions is global, this analysis focuses on the Project’s direct and/or indirect generation of GHG emissions on the region and the state. As discussed in the DEIR analysis, implementation of the Project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to the existing significant impact is cumulatively considerable. Public Services: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Public Services Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative public services impacts, specifically those related to parks. Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for public services provided by the City, including fire and police protection services, and parks. The Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also located within the respective service areas for fire and police protection services, would increase demands for public services that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be dependent on existing service capacity of fire and police protection services at the time of individual project approval and the incremental increase in the need for fire and police protection services resulting from other developments. Potential impacts would require evaluation at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under Page 48 of 55 CEQA, which would address potential impacts to public services and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning fire and police protection services. However, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development would increase demands for parks. The increased demand for park facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and thus, would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities, the construction of which could result in significant impact. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require additional parkland within the City. However, even if the additional parkland was developed, the City would still continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to recreation facilities and identify mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project and cumulative development would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the Project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation resources, and Mitigation Measure PUB-1 is required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable public service impact. Recreation: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to recreation. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Recreation Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative recreation impacts. Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for recreation facilities. Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative developments, would increase demands for recreational facilities. The increased demand for park and recreation facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. However, even if the 14.46 acres of additional parkland was developed, the City would continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative developments would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when the Page 49 of 55 future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Cumulative developments proposed within the City and surrounding areas would be anticipated to further increase the existing deficit in parkland and would result in increased impacts. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to recreation facilities and identify mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project and cumulative development would result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the Project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation resources, and Mitigation Measure PUB-1 is required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would result a cumulatively considerable recreation impact. Transportation: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Cumulative Transportation Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative transportation impacts. As outlined in the DEIR, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. Future developments on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each individual project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential cumulative transportation impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. OPR’s Technical Advisory states that “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa” (OPR 2018 page 6). Since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation, the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable impact. VI.Findings Regarding Project Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, and then evaluate the comparative merits of such alternatives. (Guidelines §15126(a)). A. Objectives for the Project A project’s statement of objectives describes the purpose of the project and the reasons for undertaking the project. To be considered for detailed analysis in the EIR, an alternative must meet most of the project objectives. The Project’s basic objectives of the Project are as follows: Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. Page 50 of 55 Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs, and in order to comply with and implement State Housing law. Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. Affirmatively further fair housing. B. Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project Based on the analysis in Chapter 3.0 of the DEIR, the City has determined that most of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, DEIR and MMRP. However, the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures. Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services (Parks) Recreation Transportation (VMT) C. Project Alternatives Descriptions Through the environmental review process, the City identified the following project alternative for consideration: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that certification of the Housing Element Update would not occur and the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of specific parcels proposed as part of the Project would not occur. The six rezone sites identified for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites would not be rezoned to the new MC/RHD zoning district and would continue to be zoned its existing zoning designations. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes to amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second story of structures within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not occur, and new residential development would not be allowed under the existing zoning in the Main Street Specific Plan area. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the buildout assumptions for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would be 218 dwelling units based on the existing zoning designations. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the Housing Element and Zone Code Updates would not be implemented by the City and the current Housing Element and Zone Code would remain in effect. Land use densities and zoning would remain unchanged and development would be consistent with the existing zoning designation. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the City would not meet the target of residential units Page 51 of 55 projected by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the City of Seal Beach, and would potentially be in conflict with SCAG’s RHNA allocation to the City of Seal Beach. Additionally, as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project would require land use amendments and rezoning from the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation to allow for the development of the ORCC Specific Plan, the 167 units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within this alternatives analysis. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. D. Findings Relating to Alternatives Based on the evaluation and analysis of project alternatives set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR, and on the entire record of proceedings for the Project, the City Council hereby makes the following findings: Findings Relating to the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Findings. The No Project Alternative is described and discussed under Chapter 4.5.1 of the DEIR. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as the significant impact of the Project related to air quality and GHG would be reduced as the potential future development buildout under this alternative would be significantly less than compared to the Project and would result in lesser levels of criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions compared to the Project. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would increase potential impacts to land use and planning as it would not contribute toward the City’s RHNA numbers and would not provide for the planning of enough units for the City to meet its target under the RHNA. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet the majority of the Project’s objectives including the following: Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. Affirmatively further fair housing. As required by CEQA, if it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6(3)). As all other Project Alternatives were considered to be infeasible and rejected from further consideration, the Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would achieve all of the Project objectives and would help the City meet its RHNA requirements. Page 52 of 55 VII.Statement of Overriding Considerations Introduction The City of Seal Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the FEIR for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code and Main Street Specific Plan Updates Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings Regarding Project Alternatives. The City, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the FEIR, and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at the City public hearing, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Page 53 of 55 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although many of the Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts, there remain some potential impacts concerning air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, recreation, and transportation for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For these impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the City as Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts described below cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. As identified in the FEIR, implementation of the Project would result in the following significant impacts even after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures: Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3, Cumulative: Construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project would conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP and even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. Construction and operation of the Project would result in generation of emissions and was identified to result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce construction exhaust and operation emissions, potential and cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutants. Project construction could expose sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ- 3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable. The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation and even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to sensitive receptors. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. Impact GHG-1 and Cumulative: Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project analyzed in the DEIR would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The Project Page 54 of 55 would exceed SCAQMD’s draft interim thresholds and therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. Impact PUB-1 and Cumulative: The Project would result in increased demand for public services. Specifically, the increased demand for parks would be anticipated to result in a significant impact as the City is already at a deficit for parkland and does not currently meet its necessary acreage requirements adopted by the City. As the Project would result in increased population growth and therefore, increased demand for parks, the City would require development of additional parkland to meet its parks ratio requirements. However, the City does not have excess park and recreation land available to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in significant impacts on parks. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks. Impact REC-1, Impact REC-2, and Cumulative: The Project would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical impact on the environment. Specifically, the increased demand for parks would be anticipated to result in a significant impact as the City is already at a deficit for parkland and does not currently meet its necessary acreage requirements adopted by the City. As the Project would result in increased population growth and therefore, increased demand for parks, the City would require development of additional parkland to meet its parks ratio requirements. However, the City does not have excess park and recreation land available to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in significant impacts on parks. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks. Impact TRANS-2 and Cumulative: The Project would potentially result in inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 150334.3, subdivision(b) and would result in generation of VMT above its threshold of significance. Implementation of TDM measures through Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 could reduce a future project’s VMT; however, the effectiveness of the measures in reducing an individual project’s potential VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined at the level of detail provided by a program document. Therefore, based on the information available at this time, which does not include sufficient detail to determine specific mitigation measures and their effect on a site-by-site basis, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to transportation. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093. Page 55 of 55 The Project would encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. The Project would amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the target of residential units projected by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. The Project would remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. The Project would affirmatively further fair housing in the City. The Project would ensure that the City’s Housing Element and zoning provisions are consistent with requirements of State Housing law with respect to development of additional housing during the 2021-2029 planning cycle. Conclusions In conclusion, the City has identified and analyzed all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project and has concluded that air quality impacts, GHG impacts, public services impacts, recreation impacts, and transportation impacts will remain unavoidable and adverse after all mitigation measures have been examined. The City has identified benefits that will result from implementation of the Project. The Project would allow for the City to comply with state law and meet its RHNA allocation requirements, encourage new housing for households at a variety of income levels and affordability, and as required by State law, would remove undue constraints on new housing development, and would affirmatively further fair housing. The City has sought to balance these substantial benefits against the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. Given the substantial benefits that will accrue to the region from the implementation of the Project, the City finds that the Project’s identified benefits override the Project’s identified significant environmental impacts. City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program August 19, 2025 Prepared for: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2999 Oak Road, Suite 800 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Seal Beach EIR Environmental Impact Report GHG greenhouse gas Hp horsepower HRER Historical Resource Evaluation Report MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PRC Public Resources Code Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC volatile organic compound VMT vehicle miles traveled CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to provide the City of Seal Beach (City) with a comprehensive list of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for City of Seal Beach’s proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City is acting as the Lead Agency, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21081.6, a Lead Agency that approves or carries out a project with potentially significant environmental effects shall adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” The CEQA Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a Lead Agency and other agencies with respect to implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they consider any of the activiti es identified in the environmental document. This MMRP is a working guide to facilitate both the implementation of the mitigation measures and the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities by the City and any monitors it may designate. If the City adopts the EIR for the proposed project, it will adopt the MMRP. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The MMRP is presented in the following table and includes the following components: • The list of mitigation measures contained in the and EIR, as adopted by the City; • The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure; • The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure; • The agency responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure ; and • The monitoring action and frequency. The City and its individual project applicants will be required to comply with this MMRP in all respects. In any instance where non-compliance occurs, the City-designated environmental monitors (the “monitoring party” listed in the MMRP) will issue a warning to the construction supervisor and notify the City’s Director of Community Development. Any decisions to halt work due to non-compliance will be made by the City. The City’s designated environmental monitors will keep records of any incidents o f non-compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will be maintained in the City’s files for use in construction and operation of the Project. CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature Draft EIR Section 3.2 – Air Quality MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coas t Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: • Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super - compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: • All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by California Air Resources Board (CARB). • Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. • Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program placard and sticker issued by CARB. • Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). • Individual project applicant • Qualified air quality specialist Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified air quality specialist • Review and confirm assessment and recommendations Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature • Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Prohibition of natural gas hearths. • Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. • Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. • Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super - compliant VOC content (0 to 10 g/L). • Individual project applicant • Qualified air quality specialist Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified air quality specialist • Review and confirm assessment and recommendations Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any future development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine • Individual project applicant • Qualified air quality specialist Prior to discretionary approval by the City and prior to issuance of any construction permits for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified air quality specialist • Review and confirm assessment and recommendations • Confirm construction plans incorporate all applicable mitigation measures identified in the HRA Prior to discretionary approval by the City and issuance of any construction permits for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. Draft EIR Section 3.3 – Biological Resources MM BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all projects must provide documentation that the site does not include special- status or protected plant and wildlife species. If the species are found on the site, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance activities. The documentation shall ensure that botanical surveys are conducted during the appropriate blooming period and any nesting bird surveys are conducted during the appropriate avian nesting season. If no special-status species are found on the project site, no additional action is necessary and the project can continue. If special-status species are found, no ground disturbance can occur and the project must either avoid the special-status species, or develop a mitigation plan approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If offsite replacement is the only mitigation option available, the performance criteria shall be at a ratio specified by the resource agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW. • Individual project applicant • Qualified biological resources specialist Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified biological resources specialist • Review and confirm documentation Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each individual development proposed MM BIO-2: Mitigation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and CDFW which shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. • Individual project applicant • Qualified biological resources specialist • USFWS • CDFW Prior to the issuance of grading permit and start of any ground disturbing activity for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified biological resources specialist • Review and confirm the mitigation plan Prior to the issuance of grading permit and during construction as needed for each individual development proposed MM BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit) for future development projects facilitated by the Project, project applicants shall complete a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations within the project site. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the • Individual project applicant • Qualified biological resources specialist Prior to the issuance of grading permit and start of any ground disturbing activity for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department • CDFW Monitoring Action: • Review and confirm preconstruction surveys and any subsequent monitoring Prior to the issuance of grading permit and during construction as needed for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, and the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the preconstruction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to CDFW and the City. Draft EIR Section 3.4 – Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER should involve a California Historic Resources Information System and California Built Environment Resource Directory records search and preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not bee n previously identified as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local landmark eligibility per the National Park Service, California Office of Historic Preservation, and City guidelines. All evaluated resources should be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. • City • Individual project applicant • Qualified architectural historian Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified architectural historian • Review and confirm HRER • Confirm recommendations have been incorporated into the project plans Prior to discretionary approval by the City and throughout the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature MM CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The qualified archaeologist shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. • City • Individual project applicant • Qualified archaeologist Prior to discretionary approval by the City for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm and conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center • Confirm individual project applicant has retained a qualified archaeologist and has prepared further study • Confirm recommendations have been incorporated into the project plans Prior to discretionary approval by the City and throughout the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed MM CUL-3: Human Remains. The City shall use the development review process to identify human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coroner determines the remains to be Native American then: (1) the coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; (2) the Native American Heritage Commission would identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native American; (3) the most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. • City • Construction contractor • County Coroner During the development review process and during construction for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm any known human remains are identified prior to construction • Confirm procedures outlined under the Health and Safety Code of the PRC are followed if remains are found during construction Prior to discretionary approval by the City and throughout the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed Draft EIR Section 3.6 – Geology and Soils MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator shall be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project-specific construction plans and • Individual project applicant • Qualified paleontologist Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: Prior to issuance of grading permit and throughout the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should be outlined in a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include: • A Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training developed by the Project Paleontologist that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during construction to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designated representative to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. • Fulltime paleontological monitoring when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential, which is expected to occur when work exceeds 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or when work occurs at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. • Procedures to follow in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, including work stoppage in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, assessment by the Project Paleontologist, and, should the fossils be of scientific importance, collection and curation in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. • A Paleontological Monitoring Report documenting the results of the mitigation program. • Review and approve paleontological monitoring program • Confirm mitigation program has been incorporated into the project plans • Confirm appropriate procedures are followed in the event undiscovered resources are encountered during construction Draft EIR Section 3.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: • City • Individual project applicant Ongoing with each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm individual project applicant has incorporated GHG reduction measures into the project plans Ongoing with each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include offsite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike- share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; o Provide parking cash-out programs; o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining onsite mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant, AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant, and AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment, in Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality. Draft EIR Section 3.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a site- specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirement for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost shall be analyzed at the time of project- specific environmental analysis. • Individual project applicant During project design for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm a site-specific evaluation has been prepared and review evaluation • Confirm sufficient onsite mitigation measures have been implemented • Calculate required contribution to funding improvements Once during design review phase for each individual development proposed Draft EIR Section 3.11 - Noise MM NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan. Project applicants shall describe and commit to a mitigation plan that will be developed when the information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures. The objective of the plan should be to minimize construction using all reasonable (e.g., cost vs. benefit) and feasible (e.g., possible to construct) means available. Components of a mitigation plan may include some or all of the following provisions, which should also be specified in construction contracts. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques available. (e.g., mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). • Individual project applicant • Construction contractor Prior to and during construction for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm a mitigation plan has been prepared and review and approve plan • Confirm requirements are implemented prior to and during construction Throughout the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited to approved haul routes established by the City. • Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise- sensitive receptors. • Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. The total noise level produced will not be substantially greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. MM NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or • Individual project applicant • Construction contractor Prior to issuance of a building permit and during construction for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: Prior to issuance of a building permit for each individual development proposed and throughout the construction phase as needed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. A qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer shall conduct this noise and vibration analysis. The vibration levels shall not exceed the Caltrans damage thresholds listed in the table in Section 3.11, Noise, under MM NOI-2 of the Draft EIR. If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. • Qualified acoustical consultant • Confirm a noise and vibration analysis has been prepared and review and approve • Confirm impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible Draft EIR Section 3.13 – Public Services MM PUB-1: Parks and Recreation. Subsequent environmental review at a project specific level shall be required for individual development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The environmental analysis shall include an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of individual development projects under the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update shall be mitigated to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s required contribution to the City related to parkland dedication and payment of required fees as required by Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, shall be determined at the time of subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. • Individual project applicant During environmental review at a project specific level Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm environmental review at a project specific level has been completed • Confirm impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible • Determine appropriate parkland dedication and fees During environmental review for each individual development proposed Draft EIR Section 3.14 - Recreation Refer to Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation in Draft EIR Section 3.13, Public Services. Draft EIR Section 3.15 - Transportation MM TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. Individual projects that do not screen out from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines. As described in the Guidelines, Projects which result in a significant impact shall provide VMT mitigation, which could consist of, but not be limited to, the following: • Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. • Implement Transportation Demand Management measures to reduce VMT generated by the Project. • Individual project applicant During environmental review at a project specific level Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Review and confirm quantitative VMT analysis has been completed • Confirm impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible During environmental review for each individual development proposed CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature • Provision of offsite infrastructure improvements including roadway improvements for active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or offsite multimodal improvements. Draft EIR Section 3.16 – Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements. Any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area shall consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative. The project shall be analyzed in accordance with CEQA on an individual project level to identify any existing tribal cultural resources that may be onsite. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be onsite, the appropriate tribal group shall be consulted. If additional tribal consultation is determined to be required, it shall be conducted in conformance with Assembly Bill 52, Senate Bill 18, and CEQA requirements. • Individual project applicant • City During environmental review at a project specific level Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm consultation with the appropriate tribal group in conformance with Assembly Bill 52, Senate Bill 18, and CEQA requirements have been completed During environmental review for each individual development proposed MM TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that additional significant site(s) or resource(s) not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but are later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites shall be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, lead agency, and the applicable tribe(s) to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be contacted and notified of the discovery. • Individual project applicant • Construction contractor During construction for each individual development proposed Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation has been conducted and determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary During the construction phase as needed for each individual development proposed Draft EIR Section 3.17 – Utilities and Service Systems MM UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation. All projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program shall be required to provide supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed site would require improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities to meet the state, County, and local standards and requirements to serve the specific site location. If improvements are required due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requ irements at the specific site location, the proposed development may be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid. • Individual project applicant During site development for individual development proposed and prior to building permit issuance Monitoring Party: • City of Seal Beach Community Development Department Monitoring Action: • Confirm supplemental evaluation has been prepared • Confirm the proposed development mitigated its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts • Confirm payment of required fees have been completed During site development for individual development proposed and prior to building permit issuance CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of Implementation Monitoring Party and Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency Verification of Implementation Action Date completed with Signature Mitigation may include, but not be limited to all or some combination of the following: • Regarding Housing Opportunity Site 8 development: Additional 12-inch water main to connect to the existing 8- inch water main at Corsair Way and Caravel Way to mitigate fire flow deficiencies. • All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Payment of impact fees, as calculated by the City’s impact fee schedule, proportionate to the project’s fair share contributions to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. • All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, designed to state, County, and local standards and requirements, to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed future development shall be required to contribute payment of required fees at the time of building permit issuance. AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:October 27, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Professional Maintenance Services Agreements with Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7708: 1. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-to- exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 2. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with PaveWest, LLC, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the Agreements; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend any or all of the Agreements up to two (2) additional one-year terms after its original term for a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per additional term; and, 5. Rejecting all other proposals. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City owns and maintains approximately 41.8 centerline miles of pavement that range from smaller local streets to larger arterials as designated on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (OC MPAH). Per the 2020, 2022, and 2024 Pavement Management Plans, the pavement condition index (PCI) ratings Page 2 2 1 6 9 for Citywide pavements were 80, 79, and 78, respectively. This represents three (3) consecutive condition assessment periods of a reduction in rating, indicating an overall decline in the entire pavement system. Continued investment in the proper maintenance and repair of City pavements would help prevent the PCI from any further decline and thus would ensure longevity of its useful life for residents and visitors alike. The City budgets annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects to rehabilitate select roadway segments, but additionally, there are emergency, unscheduled, and unexpected situations where immediate attention is needed, such as potholes, pavement restoration due to emergency utility repairs, or areas that have gone into disrepair due to various outside reasons (e.g., ground settling, tree uplifting, or general wear and tear). In-house staff have the ability to address smaller scopes; however, contract services are required for more extensive and larger scale work. Depending on the scope of work, the process to retain contract services could take several months from the time of proposal solicitation to purchase order issuance, which is not feasible for emergency or unplanned situations. In efforts to streamline said maintenance and repair needs, as well as addressing annual Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements within the City rights- of-way, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide On-Call Emergency and Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services. On July 3, 2025, staff received five (5) proposals. The evaluation panel, comprised of Public Works staff, rated the proposals based on their overall qualification, experience, availability, familiarity with the City’s policies and standards, approach, and cost, amongst other factors. Based on the submitted proposals, the following firms were deemed most qualified. Reference checks for these firms indicate satisfactory proficiency and experience to provide the requisite services. • Arizona Pipeline Company • PaveWest, LLC Staff reviewed the contractors’ proposal packages and found them to be consistent with industry standards. With the exception of an emergency, the scope and fee for each task will be agreed upon between the City and contractor through a letter proposal based on the established Fee and Cost Proposal. In the event of an emergency, the fee would be based on the rates specified on the established Fee and Cost Proposal. Due to the on-call nature of this Agreement, work is not guaranteed, nor does awarding this contract obligate funds to Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC. Each contract term is three (3) years, and the City will have the option to extend each contract for up to two (2) additional one-year terms. Each contractor’s agreement is in a not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 for the original three-year term. Each one-year term extension is in the amount of $150,000. Page 3 2 1 6 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that approval of a professional services agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC. will not have a significant effect on the environment. All maintenance and repair services under these Agreements will comply with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will generally be categorically exempt under Sections 15301 and 15302. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has approved the agreements and resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Due to the on-call nature of this agreement, work is not guaranteed nor funds obligated to Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC. Sufficient funding has been budgeted in the approved FY 2025-2026 Budget. Supplemental funding will also come from the CIP O-ST-4 Annual ADA Improvement – Public R/W Fund. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7708: 1. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-to- exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 2. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with PaveWest, LLC, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the Agreements; and, Page 4 2 1 6 9 4. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend any or all of the Agreements up to two (2) additional one-year terms after its original term for a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per additional term; and, 5. Rejecting all other proposals. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Sean Low, Deputy Director of Public Works – Maintenance/Utilities ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7708 B. Agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company C. Agreement with PaveWest, LLC RESOLUTION 7708 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH ARIZONA PIPELINE COMPANY AND PAVEWEST, LLC, FOR ON- CALL EMERGENCY AND UNEXPECTED TASK PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES WHEREAS, per the 2020, 2022, and 2024 Pavement Management Plan, the Citywide pavement condition index (PCI) ratings were 80, 79, and 78, respectively, indicating a decline in the entire City pavement system over three (3) consecutive condition assessment periods; and, WHEREAS, continued investment in the proper maintenance and repair of City pavements would help prevent the PCI from any further decline as well as address annual Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements within the City rights- of-way; and, WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) desires to retain a selected number of contractors to provide on-call pavement maintenance and repair services in both emergency and unplanned situations; and, WHEREAS, on May 22, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and, WHEREAS, on July 3, 2025, the City received five (5) proposals in response to the RFP; and, WHEREAS, the City performed a detailed review and evaluation of the proposals and deemed the following firms as the most qualified to provide such services: Arizona Pipeline Company PaveWest, LLC NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: Section 1. A. The City Council hereby awards a three (3) year Professional Services Agreement to Arizona Pipeline Company for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services in a not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 for the three-year term. 1 0 5 2 6 B. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of City. C. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to extend the Agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company for up to two (2) additional one-year terms, at his discretion, in a not-to- exceed amount of $150,000 per one-year term extension. Section 2. A. The City Council hereby awards a three (3) year Professional Services Agreement to PaveWest, LLC, for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services in a not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 for the three-year term. B. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of City. C. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to extend the Agreement with PaveWest, LLC, for up to two (2) additional one-year terms, at his discretion, in a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per one-year term extension. Section 3. The City Council hereby rejects all other proposals. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk 1 0 5 2 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7708 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & Arizona Pipeline Company 1188 W Leiske Dr Rialto, CA 92376 (951) 900-6388 This Professional Maintenance Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of October 27, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Arizona Pipeline Company, (“Contractor”), a California corporation, and the City of Seal Beach (“City”), a California charter city, (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 23 RECITALS A. City desires certain on-call emergency and unexpected task asphalt maintenance and repair services. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by the City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City issued a Request for Proposal on May 22, 2025, for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services. Contractor submitted a proposal dated July 3, 2025 to perform the maintenance and repair services in response to the Request for Proposals. C. Contractor represents that the principal members of its firm are licensed and registered California contractors (CSLB License #423545, DIR #1000010539) and are fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner by virtue of the training, experience and education of its principals and employees; and it desires to perform such services as provided herein. D. City desires to engage Contractor to provide on-call emergency and unexpected task asphalt maintenance and repair services in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Contractor’s Services. Strictly on an on-call emergency or unexpected task basis, in compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those asphalt maintenance and repair services (collectively “Services”) set forth in the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) (Exhibit A), and Contractor’s accepted Proposal (“Proposal”) (Exhibit B), and the Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C), attached and incorporated herein by this reference, all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. Given the on-call emergency or unexpected task nature of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that there is no guarantee that City shall request any Services hereunder. 1.2. Agreement Documents; Incorporation by Reference; Order of Precedence. 3 of 22 1.2.1. The Agreement Documents include this Agreement and all of the following: (i) the RFP (Exhibit A), including all the Standard Specifications, special provisions, appendices, and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; (ii) the Proposal (Exhibit B); and (iii) Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C) all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2.2. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit or incorporated documents, the order of precedence shall be as follows: (i) this Agreement; and then (ii) Exhibit C (Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements); and then (iii) Exhibit A (the RFP) including all the Standard Specifications, special provisions, appendices, and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and then Exhibit B (the Proposal) shall control. 1.3. Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. City relies upon the skill of Contractor, and Contractor’s staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Contractor and Contractor’s staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Contractor shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. The acceptance of Contractor’s work by City shall not operate as a release of Contractor from such standard of care and workmanship. 1.4. Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (i) has investigated and considered the scope and level of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from City’s Representative. 1.5. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.6. Additional Services. Contractor will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may 4 of 23 authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term 2.1. Original Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of three (3) years (“Original Term”) and shall expire at midnight on October 27, 2028, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided by this Agreement. 2.2. Extensions. The City, at its sole option, may elect to extend the Original Term of this Agreement, upon the same terms and conditions, for up to two (2) additional terms of one year each (“extension”), by providing written notice to Contractor at least one month prior to the expiration of an existing term. If timely elected by the City, the first extension shall have a term extending from October 27, 2028 through and including October 27, 2029, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to this Agreement. If timely elected by the City, the second extension shall be from October 27, 2029 through and including October 27, 2030, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Any extension shall not be effective except upon execution of a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the City Manager and Contractor’s authorized representatives. 3.0 Contractor’s Compensation 3.1. Original Term. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A, B and C, attached hereto, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for the Services assigned by City but in no event will the City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Dollars) for the Original Term. 3.1. Extensions. In the event that City elects to extend the Original Term in accordance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City pay more than the total not-to- exceed amount of $150,000.00 (One Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars) for each extension. 3.2. Additional Work. Any additional work authorized by the City Council pursuant to this Section will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B. 5 of 22 4.0 Method of Payment Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the Services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Contractor within 30 days of receiving Contractor’s invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Contractor. 5.0 Termination 5.1. Termination by City. 5.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, upon giving Contractor written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days’ notice to Contractor if Contractor fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 5.2. Termination by Contractor. This Agreement may be terminated by Contractor based on reasonable cause, by serving written notice of termination to City, provided that Contractor has first served City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within 30 days of receipt of such notice. 5.3. Obligations Upon Termination. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Contractor shall cease all work under this Agreement immediately upon the effective termination date as specified in the notice of termination. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1 of this Agreement) and all other documents, writings, and/or deliverables produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided that Contractor is not then in breach, City shall pay Contractor for any portion of the Services satisfactorily completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services satisfactorily performed, based on an amount agreed to by City and Contractor. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Contractor be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and 6 of 22 Contractor shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Contractor for the full performance of the Services up to date of termination. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. Jeff King is the Contractor's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. Jeff King shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Contractor may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Contractor: Arizona Pipeline Company 1188 W Leiske Dr Rialto, CA 92376 Attn: Jeff King 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Permits and Licenses For the term of this Agreement, Contractor and all of Contractor’s employees and subcontractors shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (“CSLB”). Contractor and all subcontractors performing any of the Services shall possess any and all current licenses in the classifications, and certifications, listed in the RFP (Exhibit A) to perform the Services. Contractor, its employees and subcontractors shall further obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all other necessary 7 of 22 licenses, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Contractor or by Contractor’s employees or other personnel under Contractor’s supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods, and details by which Contractor’s employees and other personnel will perform the Services. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9.2. All of Contractor’s employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor and Contractor’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Contractor’s personnel. Contractor’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Contractor’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Contractor’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Contractor’s choice, except (i) as otherwise required for the performance of Services on City real property, facilities, vehicles, or equipment; (ii) as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Contractor’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Contractor’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or (iii) as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Contractor from time to time for Contractor’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 9.3. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Contractor’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, 8 of 22 or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 9.4. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section 9.0. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Contractor agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall assure compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, commencing at Government Code § 20000 (“PERL”), as amended by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”), and the regulations of PERS, as amended from time to time. Without limitation to the foregoing, Contractor shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10.2. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated 9 of 22 volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s violation of any provisions of this Section 10.0. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.0 Ownership of Work Product 11.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all field notes and other notes, draft and final reports, drawings, data, surveys, studies, plans, maps, models, specifications, photographs, images, ideas, concepts, designs including but not limited to website designs, source code, object code, computer files, electronic data and/or electronic files, other media of any kind whatsoever, and any other documents and written material of any kind, created, developed or used by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement (collectively “Work Product”) shall be considered “works made for hire,” for the benefit of City. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Contractor’s consent; provided that any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product by City for any purpose other than the purpose for which the Work Product was prepared or provided under this Agreement shall be at City’s own risk. Contractor shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Work Product. 11.2. Contractor hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 11.1. 11.3. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means 10 of 22 of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (i) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (ii) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 11.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Contractor shall deliver to City all Work Product and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Contractor prepares a document on a computer, Contractor shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 12.0 Confidentiality 12.1. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees, trade secrets, and/or other information that may be protected under other applicable laws relating to privacy, confidentiality and/or privilege. Contractor covenants that all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1) and/or any other data, documents, writings, discussion or other information created, developed, received or provided by Contractor, and/or provided by City to Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor shall not release or disclose any such Work Product, data, documents, writings, discussion or other information to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Contractor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary,” provided Contractor gives City timely notice of such court order or subpoena. 12.2. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and/or subcontractors be served with any 11 of 22 summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the Services performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 12.3. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City, and any subcontracting shall be at Contractor’s sole cost and expense. Contractor is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. Authorized subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making the subcontractor subject to all requirements of this Agreement, and Contractor shall monitor and review all work and other services performed by any subcontractor to ensure that all Services performed by such subcontractor comply with this Agreement. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment, Transfer or De legation Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any of its rights, obligations or interests in this Agreement, or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason. Any purported assignment, transfer or delegation without City’s consent shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. At all times during regular business hours, Contractor shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, 12 of 22 documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least four (4) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City’s rights under this Section 15.0 shall survive for four (4) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and any other applicable state and federal laws. City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Contractor shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Contractor shall immediately report to the City any hazardous condition noted by Contractor. 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Requirements. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Contractor has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by Contractor, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, death, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). If Contractor is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so that Contractor and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds. 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for 13 of 22 bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto). 17.2.3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law; and Employer’s Liability: with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease. 17.3. Acceptability of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to City. 17.4. Additional Insureds. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor or for which Contractor is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by City to state: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days (or ten days for nonpayment) prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City; (ii) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.6. Primary and Non-Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in 14 of 22 an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it. 17.7. Separation of Insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by City. Contractor guarantees that, at the option of City, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or (ii) Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery and all rights of subrogation against City, and shall require similar express written waivers from any subcontractors. 17.10. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions (Non-Estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on City’s part to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirement does not impose additional obligations on City, nor does it waive any rights under this Section. 17.11. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Contractor does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section 17.0 in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Contractor’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor’s expense, the premium thereon. Contractor shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Contractor. 15 of 22 17.12. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Contractor may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Contractor shall maintain current endorsements on file with City’s Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Contractor shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Contractor shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.13. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. 17.14. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor may also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Services. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Contractor. 17.15. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of demands or claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required insurance policies. 17.16. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements/Pass-Through Clause. Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverages and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to submit all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the Services upon City’s request. 16 of 22 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to De fend 18.1. Indemnities. 18.1.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 18.0) from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens and/or losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Claims”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to persons or property, including bodily injury, death, personal injury, and property damage, in any manner arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement and/or any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct, of Contractor, its officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, or contractors, or their officers, directors, managers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor shall bear the legal liability) in the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Claims to the extent arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Contractor shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Claims with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Contractor shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.1.2 Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless city in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.2. Subcontractor Indemnification. Contractor shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. If Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity agreements, Contractor shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement, any violations of law, any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor’s officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors, or their officers, agents, 17 of 22 servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors (or any entity or individual that Contractor’s subcontractors shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except to the extent such Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.3. Workers’ Compensation Acts Not Limiting. Contractor’s obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives any statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City and the other Indemnitees. 18.4. Indemnification Not Limited By Insurance. Procurement of insurance by Contractor is not and shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor’s liability, or as a waiver of or limitation on full performance of Contractor’s duties of defense and indemnification, under this Section 18.0 or under any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Claims or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees as defined in this Section 18.0, and Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Contractor, City, or any of the other Indemnitees. 18.5. Survival of Terms. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 19.0 Warranty 19.1. Warranty Period. The Services shall be warranted by Contractor against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one year. The warranty period shall start on the date the work is completed as determined by the Project Administrator. 19.2. Commencement. The warranty period for specific items covered under manufacturers’ or suppliers’ warranties shall commence on the date they are placed into service at the direction of or as approved by the City Representative in writing. 19.3. Assignment. All warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers, of any tier, for the materials furnished and work performed shall be assigned, in writing, to City, and such warranties shall be delivered to the City Representative prior to acceptance of Contractor’s performance of the Agreement. 18 of 22 19.4. Warranty Obligation. Contractor shall re-perform any defective work, and replace or repair any defective materials, in a manner satisfactory to the City Representative, after notice to do so from the City Representative, and within the time specified in the notice. If Contractor fails to re-perform the work or make such replacement or repairs within the time specified in the notice, City may perform the work, replacement or repairs at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall promptly pay any invoice for such work, repair or replacement. This Section shall survive expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 20.0 Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Contractor affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by law. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against City of any of City’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated volunteers, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, or subconsultants, on any basis prohibited by law. 21.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 22.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records If this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in the California Labor Code, then Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 23.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 19 of 22 24.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 25.0 Government Code Claim Compliance In addition to any and all requirements of this Agreement pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code Section 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against City. 26.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought by reason of, that arises out of, and/or relates to any dispute under this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both). 27.0 Non-Exclusive Agreement City reserves the right to employ or retain any other contractors in connection with the Services. 28.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement, and their respective approved successors and assigns, if any, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement. 29.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it 20 of 22 be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (i) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (ii) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (iii) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 30.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 30.1. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§ 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 30.2. Contractor further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Contractor paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 30.3. Contractor warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this Subsection. 31.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Contractor of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Contractor for anything done, furnished or relating to Contractor’s work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation 21 of 22 of City’s check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 32.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Contractor shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City’s review of Contractor’s report or plans. Should Contractor fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Contractor under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 33.0 Non-Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Contractor by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Contractor’s Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Contractor’s Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 34.0 Mutual Cooperation 34.1. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Contractor with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Contractor’s proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 34.2. Contractor’s Cooperation. Contractor agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City’s representative and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Services to be performed. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 35.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be 22 of 22 construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 36.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 37.0 Titles and Headings The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it. 38.0 Recitals City and Contractor acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 39.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Contractor is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. EXHIBIT A Request for Proposal ii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. QUALIFICATIONS III. SCOPE OF SERVICES IV. PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS V. SCHEDULE VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS VII. FEE & COST PROPOSAL VIII. INTERVIEW IX. SELECTION PROCESS X. SPECIAL PROVISIONS XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS EXHIBIT A – Fee & Cost Proposal EXHIBIT B – Sample Contract 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON-CALL EMERGENCY AND UNEXPECTED TASK PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR SERVICES ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MUST REGISTER AS A VENDOR ON THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANETBIDS PORTAL. COMMUNICATION AND ADDENDA, IF ANY, WILL BE DISTRIBUTED VIA PLANETBIDS. I. INTRODUCTION The City of Seal Beach (“City”) owns and maintains approximately 41.8 centerline miles of pavement along with a network of alleyways. The City is seeking one or more contractors who would be available to provide on-call pavement repair services in both emergency and unplanned situations, for an anticipated term of three (3) years. The final agreement amount and term will depend on the quality, diversity, responsiveness of the received proposals, and the future need for emergency and unexpected task work. Work shall comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (2018), City of Seal Beach standards and provisions, Caltrans Standard Specifications, and any Agencies Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s). Due to the on-call/emergency nature of this contract, no work is guaranteed, even if awarded. The scope, work schedule, and cost for each requested emergency or unexpected task will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis, based on the rates specified in the response. The City reserves the right to not accept the Contractor’s proposed scope and fee, and to let any project for competitive bid at the discretion of the City. II. QUALIFICATIONS Minimum Qualifications · Valid California Contractor’s Class A (General Engineering) license issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs – Contractors State License Board by the time of proposal submittal and shall remain valid for the term of the Agreement. · Valid City of Seal Beach business license for the term of the Agreement, if selected. · Minimum ten (10) years of professional pavement maintenance and repair service experience. · Ability to mobilize and respond to emergency job sites, as necessary within the time frames provided in this RFP. 4 · Maintain, or have the ability to quickly acquire, all necessary labor, equipment, and material to promptly complete the Work. Desirable Qualifications · Knowledge and experience with the City of Seal Beach’s standards, provisions, and practices. · Familiarity with public sector on-call maintenance and repair contracts. · Adequate availability of key team members and equipment. III. SCOPE OF SERVICES Work to be done consists of furnishing all labor, supervision, methods of processes, implements, tools, machinery, safety equipment, traffic control, materials and proper licensing required to identify, list, and perform pavement maintenance and repair services in those areas designated by the City on an emergency or unexpected task basis. Due to the on-call/as-needed nature of this Agreement, Work may vary according to the need and there is no guarantee that work will be assigned. The Contractor shall furnish and maintain records designating exact locations and areas of repairs and maintenance. Such reports shall be signed by the Contractor and the City. If the City determines that the Contractor has not satisfactorily performed the Work, payment will be withheld for said Work until such time the Work is completed to the satisfaction of the City. All work for which progress payment is made shall be reported on and certified according to the foregoing procedure, and in addition thereto, the City shall certify that the Work has been inspected and completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to payment. The Contractor shall be responsible for timely payment of any subcontractor, materialmen, workers and suppliers. Authorization of Work Unless otherwise noted as an emergency, City will coordinate with Contractor to schedule the work with a minimum seven (7)-day prior notification. In an emergency, Contractor shall respond and mobilize within four (4) hours after initial request from the City for Work under this contract. Response times to extend to 8 hours with prior written consent to City. Contractor shall perform the on-call services described in Section III - Scope of Services (“Services” or “Work”). Upon written request from the City, Contractor shall provide a “letter proposal” for services requested by the City (hereinafter referred to as the “Letter Proposal”). At a minimum, the Letter Proposal shall include, but is not limited to, the following: · A detailed description of the Work to be provided; · The estimated number of hours, by task, and cost to complete the Work; and 5 · A detailed Work schedule. No services shall be provided until the City has provided written acceptance of the Letter Proposal, unless in an emergency situation after Contractor has received a written notice to proceed from the City Engineer or designee. Once authorized to proceed, Contractor shall diligently perform the duties in the approved Letter Proposal or notice to proceed. Progress of Work Time is of the essence on every aspect of the Work. Work shall proceed in an expeditious and orderly manner. The Contractor shall endeavor to avoid service interruptions to the extent feasible. Wherever possible, Work shall be completely finished prior to proceeding to the next location. Any exceptions shall require pre-approval by the City. Alterations The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the quantity of any item or portion of the Work or to omit portions of the Work as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the City. The City may make such alterations or deviations, additions to, or omissions from these specifications, as may be determined during the progress of the work to be necessary and advisable for the proper completion thereof. Such alterations or deviations, additions or omissions shall in no way affect or make void the Agreement. Upon written order of the City, Contractor shall proceed with the Work as increased, decreased or altered. Extra Work 1. Extra work shall not be performed without prior written approval by the City unless public safety is immediately at risk. 2. Extra work may be required, and extra time may be granted, by the City as a result of acts of God, vandalism, theft, civil disturbances, accidents, or improvements. 3. If unit prices are not available, payment for extra work will be based on actual cost of labor, plus wholesale cost of materials, plus an industry standard markup not to exceed 15%. Extra services other than those listed in Exhibit A shall be negotiated on a time-and-material basis with a “not to exceed” amount. Acceptance of Work Done The City, at its sole discretion, will make inspections and determine that the Work has been completed in all respects in accordance with these specifications, and if applicable, accepted. Billing Form, Records and Reports The Contractor shall maintain a record of all work performed, including but not limited to location, types, and amounts maintained/installed/removed. These records shall list the date(s) of the Work performed. A copy of such record shall be provided to the City upon completion of each Task Order. Contractor shall maintain such record through the term of the Agreement, plus three (3) years after Contract termination. 6 The Contractor shall return appropriate and completed Task Orders showing the date and inventory of work performed, signed by an authorized representative of Contractor and attached to each invoice. Contractor shall provide a billing form and progress payment form approved by the City. Method of Work The asphalt pavement repair work shall involve all work necessary to remove and replace asphalt pavement work, as needed to complete the work in place. All Work shall be performed per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book – 2018 edition), City of Seal Beach standards and provisions, Caltrans Standards Specifications, and any Authority Having Jurisdiction’s (AHJ) requirements. The Contractor shall ensure all work performed under this contract be in such a manner as to provide maximum safety to the public and their staff. Contractor must comply with all safety standards required by all regulatory agencies including but not limited to: California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL-OSHA), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the Orange County Environmental Health Care Agency (OCEHC). This also includes local regulatory compliance set forth by the City of Seal Beach. The City reserves the right to issue restraint or cease and desist orders to the Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance under this contract. The Contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to protect work sites free of hazards and/or damages, until the Work is accepted by the City. Any hazardous conditions noted by the Contractor, which is not a result of his/her operations, shall be immediately reported to the City. Rubbish and construction debris shall be promptly removed from the work area and properly disposed of to an approved disposal site. The Contractor shall provide a self-propelled vacuum-type sweeper, or as approved by the City, as required to maintain Work site cleanliness. After removal operations have been completed, the grounds shall be left in a neat, safe, and presentable condition, to the satisfaction of the City. The Contractor shall verify the location of all utilities prior to any Work and shall be held liable for all damages incurred due to his/her operations. Materials The following supplements Section 201 – Concrete, Mortar, and Related Materials and Section 203 – Bituminous Materials in the Greenbook: 201-1 PORTLAND CEMENT CONNRETE 201-1.1 Requirements 201-1.1.1 General Concrete mix designs shall be submitted to City Engineer and staff for approval prior to use in construction. 203-5 SLURRY SEAL 203-5.1 General 7 Slurry seal shall be emulsion-aggregate slurry (EAS) conforming to section 203-5.4, unless otherwise noted. 203-5.4 Emulsion-Aggregate Slurry (EAS) 203-5.4.1 General Emulsion-aggregate slurry (EAS) shall be Type II-CQS-1h conforming to section 203-3. 203-5.4.2 Materials 203-5.4.2.2 Emulsified Asphalt Emulsified asphalt shall be of the quick-set type. 203-5.4.2.4 Latex Latex shall be Ultrapave 65K produced by Textile Rubber and Cement Company, Inc., or equal as approved by the Engineer in advance of ordering the latex additive. It shall be added to the emulsified asphalt by the co-mill method at the emulsion plant at the rate of 2½ percent of weight of the emulsified asphalt. Latex-added emulsified asphalt shall be kept in a suspended state by an agitating mixer and mixed every three days. 203-5.5 Rubberized Emulsion Aggregate Slurry (REAS) – Central Mix 203-5.5.1 General. Utilization of REAS and any mixture related to REAS shall be Central Mix, unless otherwise noted on Plans or by Engineer. 203-6 ASPHALT CONCRETE. 203-6.4 General. Performance graded (PG) asphalt binder shall be PG 64-10 and conform to Table 203-1.2. Asphalt Concrete for roadway pavement, overlay, full depth surface course, trench resurfacing, slot paving, and patching shall be Type C2 PG 64-10. Asphalt concrete for skin patching shall be Type D2 PG-64-10. Asphalt concrete for A.C. curbs and berms shall be D-PG 70-10 with 1% additional binder in a mix design approved by OC Public Works Materials Laboratory per County of Orange, OC Public Works Standard Plan 1805. The contact surfaces of all cold pavement joints, curbs, gutters, etc. shall be painted with Grade SS-1h emulsified asphalt immediately before the adjoining A.C. pavement is placed. Finished surface of the new pavement at the edge of gutter shall be flush with the edge of the gutter in all crosswalk areas and shall be 3/8” higher than the lip of gutter in all other areas. 8 The Contractor shall prevent the formation of carbonized particles caused by overheating asphalt during manufacturing or construction. Asphalt mix design shall be submitted to the Engineer a minimum of ten (10) Days prior to installation. 203-11 ASPHALT RUBBER HOT MIX (ARHM) 203-11.1 General. Composition and grading shall be ARHM-GG-C 203-17 CRACK SEAL 203-17.1 General Crack sealing material shall be RW 306 R sealant and per the following specifications: TEST REQUIREMENT Pen @ 77 degrees F (ATSM D-3407) 25 (+/-5) Pen @ 115 degrees F (ASTM D-3407) 70 max. Softening Point 210-220 ⁰F Ductility @ 77 degrees F, 5cm/min 30 min Force Ductility 4 max Resilience 50-60 Brookfield Viscosity @ 380 degrees F 20-30 poise Flow @ 140 degrees F 0 max Flexibility (90 degree bend in 2 sec. over 1 1/8 mandrel. No cracks. pass @ 0 ⁰F Construction Methods The following supplements Section 302 – Roadway Surfacing in the Greenbook: 302-1 CRACK SEAL 302-1.1 General The Contractor shall apply herbicide to all vegetation one week prior to removal and crack sealing. Removal of vegetation shall consist of routing out cracks to ensure proper vegetation removal from all cracks. Cracks shall be cleaned using heat lance at approximately 2800 degrees to destroy any vegetation root or seed that may be left behind to prevent any further growth. The heat lance application will also clean out all dirt, sand, debris, and moisture. 302-1.2 Sealant Application Sealant shall be applied in prepared cracks at a temperature of approximately 380 degrees Fahrenheit. No more than a 2½” wide and 1/16” thick strip of material shall be applied to pavement surface. Squeegeeing of sealant 9 will not be acceptable due to the inability to consistently meet the required configuration. Any excess sealant material shall be removed from asphalt surfaces. All cracks greater than 1-inch shall be tack-coated and filled with hot asphalt concrete and rolled flush. 302-4 SLURRY SEAL SURFACING 302-4.8 Spreading and Application Prior to beginning slurry seal operations, the Contractor shall furnish current licensed weighmaster’s certificates indicating the net weight capacity of the aggregate bin of each slurry mixer. Except for partial loads to complete a day’s schedule, or for patching, each mixer shall be filled to its rated capacity and the Engineer and the Contractor shall keep a daily count of the number of loads and/or partial loads applied to the streets by each slurry mixer. Each aggregate bin shall have permanent calibration marks in maximum increments of 2 tons. Each slurry crew shall be composed of a coordinator at the Project site at all times, a competent quick-set mixing operator, a competent driver, and sufficient laborers for any handwork, cleanup, and barricading. Slurry shall not be applied prior to 8:00 a.m. and shall not be applied after 1:00 p.m., unless approved by the Engineer. Approval of application after 1:00 p.m. will only be for the purpose of completing the section of Work that is underway. Slurry seal shall be sufficiently cured for vehicle traffic without tracking or damage to the surface by 3:00 p.m. on the same day. In case of damage caused by vehicles and/or pedestrians upon slurry that has not been sufficiently cured, the Contractor shall replace all of the damaged Work at the Contractor’s expense and no additional compensation shall be made by the City. Upon completion of the day’s slurry seal, streets and parking lots shall be temporarily striped within 24 hours. All Stop Bars shall be temporarily striped on the same day before the street is reopened to traffic. Final striping and marking shall be installed no more than ten (10) Days after placement of slurry seal. Prior to applying slurry seal, the Contractor shall clean all work surfaces and remove all loose materials, vegetation, oil, and other foreign material. Additionally all locations with weeds shall be treated by an approved weed-killer before any slurry seal is applied. 302-4.9 Field Sampling and Testing The Contractor shall slurry seal test sections within the construction limits for each batch of slurry seal mix upon the direction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall apply the slurry seal test sections as directed by the Engineer. No slurry seal shall be applied until the test slurry seal sections have been approved by the Engineer. The costs of these slurry seal tests shall be included in the Contract price paid for slurry seal and no additional compensation shall be made by the City. Field samples that do not meet the requirements of Table 302-4.9.1 shall be re-tested. The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs associated with the re-testing of field samples that do not meet the requirements. 302-5 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 302-5.1 General The top layer of asphalt concrete (finish course) shall be placed in a separate lift. Longitudinal joints between two passes of asphalt concrete shall be along a lane line. Leveling course longitudinal joints shall be offset at 10 least two (2) feet from a lane. Level course longitudinal joints and finish course longitudinal joints shall not be located along the same line. Leveling course transverse joints and finish course transverse joints shall be offset approximately five (5) feet from each other, except at the project paving limits. Localized Pavement Removals & Patching Operations – In areas designated for localized pavement removal and replacement, all such AC removals shall occur AFTER the initial pavement grinding operations have been conducted and a site review has been made with either Engineer, City Inspector, or designated City Staff to verify the final limits of required removal and replacement. Contractor shall be required to coordinate such efforts with the City Inspector and to plan accordingly to ensure the required construction phasing requirements are met. Final AC base paving shall be placed and compacted on areas of Localized Patching on the same day as its removal and shall be installed in a single 4 inch lift. 302-5.4 Tack Coat The contact surfaces of all cold pavement joints, curbs, gutters, etc. shall be painted with Grade SS-1h emulsified asphalt immediately before the adjoining A.C. pavement is placed. Additionally, tack coat shall be applied to all cold milled surfaces and all paving joints (not just cold joints). It shall be applied between base and surface courses when the surface course is not placed immediately after the base course, and to existing horizontal and vertical concrete surfaces against which paved surfaces where new asphalt concrete overlaps or abuts existing pavement. Tack coat shall be applied with complete and uniform coverage and shall not be over sprayed onto adjacent pavement when applying. 302-5.6 Rolling Rolling along a joint shall be such that the widest part of the roller is on the hot side of the joint. 302-5.7 Joints Care shall be exercised in connection with the construction of all joints to ensure that the surface of the pavement is true to grade and cross section. Joint lines between successive runs shall be on lane lines. 302-5.8 Adjustment of Water Valve Covers Existing utility covers (whether it be water, sewer, or storm drain related in nature), shall be adjusted to grade by the Contractor per City of Seal Beach Public Works Department Standards and Specifications for utility cover construction. All utility covers shall be protected in place and shall be accessible at all times during construction. The Contractor shall notify the City Public Works Department – Utilities Division forty-eight (48) hours prior to the beginning of work. Removals The Contractor shall dispose of all excess or waste material pursuant to all rules and regulations and local regulators and shall include all fees for such disposal in the appropriate Bid items. Non-reinforced concrete and asphalt wastes generated from the job site shall be disposed of at a facility that crushes such materials for reuse and the Contractor’s expense. Excess soil and other recyclable solid wastes shall not be disposed of at a sanitary landfill. 11 The Contractor shall maintain tonnage records of total solid wastes generated and solid wastes disposed of at a sanitary landfill. The Contractor shall report said tonnage monthly to the Engineer on a form provided by the Engineer and provide appropriate confirmation documentation from the recycling facility. Improvements removed without prior approval of the Engineer are subject to replacement at the Contractor’s cost. Sidewalks to be removed to nearest score line or joint. Asphalt Concrete Pavement Asphalt pavement shall be removed to neatly sawed edges as required by the Engineer. Saw cuts shall be full depth. Where only the surface of existing asphalt pavement is to be removed, the method of removal shall be approved by the Engineer, and a minimum laying depth of 1 inch of new pavement material shall be provided at the join line. Where asphalt pavement adjoins a trench, the edges adjacent to the trench shall be saw cut to neat straight lines before resurfacing to ensure that all areas to be resurfaced are accessible to the rollers used to compact the subgrade or paving materials. Signing & Striping Pavement markers shall comply with Section 81-3, “Pavement Markers”, of the 2022 Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and the CA MUTCD (Latest Edition). Glass beads, paint for striping and pavement markings, and thermoplastic material shall comply with Section 84, “Markings”, of the 2022 Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and the CA MUTCD (Latest Edition). Temporary striping shall be Rapid Dry paint. Final striping material will be determined by the City. The Contractor shall include all costs associated with the restoration of disturbed signing and striping in the appropriate Bid items. Traffic Control The Contractor shall maintain a safe environment at all times. Appropriate State/City traffic control standards and/or policies shall be adhered to for all Work. All Contactor employees shall have access to and are well- versed with the use of the W.A.T.C.H manual (Work Area Traffic Control Handbook) at all times. Personnel, vehicles, equipment, etc. shall be properly outfitted/equipped for the Work being performed. Any restrictions, due to the Work that cause travel ways to be less than State/City minimum requirement, shall have appropriate traffic control (in accordance with State specifications, policies, and procedures installed prior to the beginning of Work and remaining until all Work is completed to the satisfaction of the City. All traffic control, at a minimum, shall adhere to requirements of the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Contractor shall include cost associated with traffic control in the appropriate Bid item. NPDES Regulations The Contractor shall comply with all City, and applicable regulatory agency, regulations regarding NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) Requirements and the City’s Best Management Practices. 12 Contractor shall not discharge anything to the storm drain system or bodies of water. Contractor shall implement the attached Best Management Practices (BMP’s) provided by the City. Contractor shall conduct annual training regarding stormwater regulations and the appropriate BMP’s for all employees working at City facilities. Contractor shall provide to the City annually, by July 1, with certification of the required training on stormwater regulations and the BMP’s, and acknowledgement of adherence to these standards while performing work at the City. Protection of Existing Utilities The Contractor shall take all due precautionary measures to protect all existing utilities. When necessary, the Contractor shall have all utilities located by the responsible agency at least 48-hours prior to commencing any excavation or utility impacting work. The Contractor's attention is directed to the one-call utility notification service provided by Underground Service Alert (USA) (800)-422-4133. Any discrepancy or questions that arises regarding existing utilities shall be brought up to Engineer or Public Works Utilities Division prior to any work being conducted. Protection from Damage The Contractor shall protect all public and private property that is not part of Work. Contractor shall protect property and facilities adjacent to and within the work areas. The work area shall be safe, clean, and presentable condition, as determined by the City. All public or privately owned improvements and facilities shall be restored to their original condition and location, or better, using new material only. Contractor shall repair such damage at Contractor’s sole expense. Nothing herein shall be construed to entitle the Contractor exclusive use of any public right-of-way or City property. Contractor shall conduct his/her operations so as not to interfere with the authorized work of utility companies or other agencies. Withholding of Payment In the event that deficiencies in the Work or non-compliance with applicable standards are determined by the City, the Contractor will have 24 hours from the time of notification to remedy said deficiency. Deductions from the monthly payment due for Work not performed will be based upon the bid worksheets. IV. PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS For answers to questions or particulars regarding this Request for Proposal, all interested parties are to contact staff during the following dates: (Contact between 5/22/25 – 6/13/2025) Sean C. Low Deputy Public Works Director/Maintenance and Utilities Department of Public Works 1776 Adolfo Lopez Dr Seal Beach, CA 90740 slow@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1433 13 (Contact between 6/16/25 – 6/20/2025) Sean Sabo Management Analyst Department of Public Works 211 8th St Seal Beach, CA 90740 ssabo@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1431 The City will respond to all questions and requests for clarification received by June 20, 2025. V. SCHEDULE The following dates reflect the anticipated schedule: Request for Proposal Solicitation May 22, 2025 Pre-Proposal Question Deadline June 20, 2025 Proposal Submittal Deadline July 3, 10:00 a.m. Contractor Interview (if conducted) July-August 2025 Contract Award August 2025 Notice to Proceed August 2025 VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Acceptance of Submittals Proposals are due by 10:00 AM on July 3rd, 2025 to the following. Postmarks will not be accepted. Kathryne Cho, P.E. Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Department of Public Works 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 kcho@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1321 Please submit three (3) bound hard copies, and one (1) electronic copy of the Contractor’s Proposal. Proposals received after the date and time listed above will not be accepted or considered for this Project. There is no expressed or implied obligation for City to reimburse firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. Materials submitted by respondents are subject to public inspection under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sec. 6250 et seq.). Any language purporting to render the entire proposal confidential or propriety will be ineffective and will be disregarded. 14 The City reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted, and to use any idea in a proposal regardless of whether the proposal was selected. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in the RFP, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City and the selected Contractor. All property rights, including publication rights of all reports produced by the selected Contractor in connection with services performed under this Agreement shall be vested in the City. B. Proposal Requirements Proposals shall be limited to 30 pages, excluding proposal cover, cover letter, table of contents, and dividers. The following information shall be provided, at a minimum: Cover Letter Table of Contents Company Qualifications Local Staffing List Understanding/Approach References Sample Letter Proposal Cost Proposal Exceptions Business Entity DIR Registration Number/Contractor’s License Contract Signatories Cover Letter: Cover letter shall not exceed two pages. It shall provide an executive summary of the proposal and designate the firm’s authorized representative regarding this RFP. Table of Contents: The table of contents shall list the following sections with page numbers and information in each section shall be provided. Company Qualifications: Provide a summary of the Contractor’s qualifications, including background and experience. Local Staffing List: Provide an organizational chart showing the names, positions, responsibilities, and availability of the individual(s) that would be assigned to this Agreement, including sub-Contractors. Identify the individual(s) authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of the Contractor’s firm and the Contractor’s project manager. Understanding/Approach: Describe the Contractor’s understanding of the Work requested in this RFP, any key issues that may need special attention. Describe how the Contractor will approach the scope of services and each task needed to complete the project. Any task assumptions and/or exclusions shall be clearly identified. References: Contractor should provide a minimum of five (5) references from public agencies the Contractor has performed work for within the last five (5) years. Information shall include, at a minimum: · Agency name · Scope of work and/or services provided, prime/sub-Contractor. · Project outcome · Construction value · Dates 15 · Client project manager name, valid telephone number, and email Sample Letter Proposal: Contractor will be required to submit a sample letter proposal providing a template of how the Contractor intends to respond to each Work request. Cost Proposal: Contractors will be required to submit a “Fee & Cost Proposal for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services” as shown in Exhibit A. Additional labor/material rates may be provided in addition to Exhibit A. All rates shall remain for the term of the contract as permitted by law, unless specifically detailed as a supplement to Exhibit A. The Method of Payment of the Contract will be Time and Material. Exceptions: The Contractor shall review this RFP and attached sample contract. Exceptions to any portion of the RFP and/or City’s standard agreement will need to be clearly identified. Identification of exceptions does not constitute City concurrence and acceptance. Exceptions may be negotiated with the top-ranked firm. Business Entity: Clearly indicate the firm’s business entity type (i.e., a California corporation). DIR Registration/Contractor’s License: Clearly indicate the Contractor’s Department of Industrial Relations registration number for the prime/sub-Contractor, and provide the Contractor and sub-Contractor’s license information. Contract Signatories: Provide the two binding signatories for the firm, pursuant to California Corporation Code Section 313. VII. FEE AND COST PROPOSAL In preparing the fee and cost proposal for this project, the Contractor shall take into consideration the following: 1. Compensation for services, and any optional tasks, provided will be on a time-and-materials, not-to-exceed amount. 2. Fee proposal and billing rates shall remain effective for the term of the Agreement, which is anticipated to be three (3) years, subject to change. Any anticipated billing/rate adjustments shall be clearly identified in the Proposal. 3. The contractor’s standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal along with the mark-up rate for any non-labor expenses and sub- consultants. The City will negotiate the final fee with the top-ranked Contractor, if necessary. 16 VIII. INTERVIEW Top ranked Contractor team(s) may be interviewed by the selection committee. Proposed key personnel from the Contractor’s team may be requested to present the teams’ and their qualifications at an interview. IX. SELECTION PROCESS Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the response to all provisions of this RFP. Since this solicitation is an RFP as opposed to a Bid, pricing alone will not constitute the entire selection criteria. The City may use some or all of the following criterion in its evaluation and comparison of proposals submitted. The criteria listed are not necessarily an all-inclusive list. The order in which they appear is not intended to indicate their relative importance. The City reserves the right to modify the evaluation criterion and percentage of score as deemed appropriate prior to the commencement of evaluation. The City reserves the right to determine whether or not a proposal meets the specifications and requirements of this RFP and reject any proposal that, in the City’s sole opinion, fails to meet the detail or intent of the requirements. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Completeness of Response (Pass/Fail) Responses to this RFP must be complete. Responses that do not include the proposal content requirements identified within this RFP and subsequent addenda and do not address each of the requested items will be considered incomplete, may be rated a Fail in the Evaluation Criteria, and may receive no further consideration. 2. Qualifications & Experience (30 points) a. Local Presence - A statement addressing firm’s ability to respond in emergencies and effectively conduct the Work for the City based on the Firm’s location. b. Relevant experience, specific qualifications, and technical expertise of the Contractor and sub-Contractors to perform the work. c. Experience working in a coastal community and urban environment. d. Contractor’s experience working in the public sector and knowledge of public sector procurement processes, in particular City of Seal Beach standards, processes, and policies. e. Quality of references from at least five (5) agencies the Contractor currently or have previously consulted for in the past five (5) years. 3. Organization & Approach (30 points) a. Contractor’s understanding of range of possible emergency and unexpected Work. b. Contractor’s ability to deploy the appropriate resources to promptly meet requested emergency and/or non-emergency Work. c. Contractor’s availability to complete both small and large scale projects without the compromise of quality, cost, and/or time. d. Contractor’s ability to self-perform the requested Work, or form a quality sub-contracting team. 17 e. Contractor’s understanding of the nature of public sector work and its decision-making process. 4. Fee (40 points) a. Cost proposal b. Quality of sample letter proposal The City reserves the right to determine whether or not a proposal meets the specifications and requirements of this RFP and reject any proposal that, in the City’s sole opinion, fails to meet the detail or intent of the requirements. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. The City reserves the right to put non-emergency and pre-planned projects out for formal bidding. All proposals received as specified will be evaluated by City staff in accordance with the abovementioned. During the evaluation period, the City may do any or all of the following: generate a “short list” and conduct interviews with the top candidates; conduct on-site visits and/or tours of the candidates’ places of business. Contractors should be aware that award may be made without Contractor visits, interviews, or further discussion or negotiations. X. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS a. Normal working hours will generally be between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM on business days, Monday through Friday. During emergencies, work may be required at other than normal hours. The Contractor must receive the approval of the City prior to commencing Work during hours outside those stated above. b. Contractor shall maintain an adequate crew of at least two experienced employees to perform the services required. c. Contractor will be required to supply a list of equipment owned and available for Work. d. Contractor will be required to supply a list of references for similar work performed. e. Contractor will be required to supply a list of sub-contractors, if applicable. f. Contractor shall provide City with required proof of liability insurance, worker's compensation insurance, vehicle insurance, and City business license as noted in the contract. g. Contractor shall be responsible for Contractor’s compliance in all respects with the prevailing wage rates to all the laborers involved, and with California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq., including the keeping of all records required by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776 and the implementing administrative regulations. The City shall be a third party beneficiary of the forgoing covenant with rights to enforce the same as against the Contractor. h. Hourly rates and unit prices quoted shall include all safety equipment required. Traffic control may be 18 required on some sites, and shall be included in quoted prices. i. Hourly rates for emergency work shall be for actual time spent on the job site. No travel time will be paid. j. At any time prior to proposal due date, Contractor may inspect City property for further information, if desired. City representatives will be available if desired to answer questions. k. Contractor shall protect any and all public and private property adjacent to work areas. Any damage resulting directly or indirectly from Contractor’s actions shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. l. Contactor shall adhere to all Cal-OSHA rules and regulations for any and all Work performed under this Contract. m. Contractor must be able to provide a list of employee’s names, dates worked and hours worked on each date if requested by the City. PERSONNEL The Contractor shall use and furnish all labor necessary for the satisfactory performance for the Work set forth in this Agreement. a. Contractor's Laborers The Contractor shall require each of his/her employees to adhere to basic standards of working attire. These are to include uniforms with the Contractor's company name or insignia clearly visible, proper shoes and other gear required by State Safety Regulations, and proper wearing of clothing, which includes that shirts shall be worn at all times. b. Typical Tasks Contractor shall supply laborers with the necessary skills to perform duties in connection with pavement marking maintenance. c. Licenses Contractor shall possess a valid Contractor’s “A” License issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs – Contractors State License Board by the time of proposal submittal and shall remain valid for the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall have a valid City of Seal Beach business license for the term of the Agreement, if selected. Laborers will be required to possess a valid and current California Driver License, including all insurances as required by the City. d. Knowledge and Abilities The Contractor’s representative shall have a general knowledge of the pavement industry, including suitable experience in the field to perform the required work in a safe and thoughtful manner 19 EQUIPMENT The contractor shall use and furnish all equipment necessary for the satisfactory performance of the Work set forth in this Agreement. a. Vehicles Contractor shall display the name of their firm on any/all vehicles used or otherwise by the Contractor's employees. b. Maintenance All equipment used by the Contractor shall be maintained in a good operable mechanical condition. All equipment shall be properly adjusted, from an operational safety standpoint. c. Storage of Equipment The Contractor is required to supply storage for equipment that is used in the City. Equipment shall not be stored in the public right-of-way or on any City property without written authorization from the City. SUPERVISION The Contractor shall provide such adequate supervision as to furnish ongoing supervision of workmanship and adherence to schedules by the laborers performing the Work. The foreman, or contractor representative, shall check with the City weekly as to (1) schedule of Work; (2) complaints; and (3) adequacy of performance. The Contractor shall submit such reports as the City may require ensuring compliance with scheduled Work. The foreman shall be onsite while work is in progress. Foremen shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in the pavement industry. TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND EMERGENCY SERVICE CONTACT INFORMATION The Contractor shall provide the City at all times throughout the duration of this contract emergency telephone numbers of at least two (2) qualified persons who can be called for emergency conditions at any time that Contractor’s representatives are not immediately available at the job site. An alternate emergency number shall be provided in case no answer is received at the first number. The emergency number shall be used to contact the Contractor representative who can take the necessary action required to alleviate an emergency condition. In addition, the Contractor shall employ person(s) to answer telephone and e-mail complaints, requests for service, etc. (an answering service will not be considered sufficient for this purpose) during normal City business hours. Normal City business hours are 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Unless otherwise noted as an emergency, City will coordinate with Contractor to schedule the work with a minimum seven (7)-day prior notification. Contractor is required to provide the City with a 24-hour emergency number for contact outside normal business hours. The response to an emergency call-out by the Contractor shall not be more than four (4) hours and shall be considered part of the normal contract except when delayed by problems caused by vehicle accidents or Acts of God. 20 XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Signature The Proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Contractor. B. Other Considerations: The City shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any firm considering submitting a proposal in response to this RFP. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, or any part of, or waive any informalities or irregularities. The City reserves the right to withdraw, to cancel this RFP at any time without prior notice and the City makes no representations that any contract will be awarded to any firm responding this RFP. C. Business License Required The Seal Beach Municipal Code requires all businesses operating in the City to obtain a business license and pay a business license tax. For more information, go to www.sealbeachca.gov. D. Prevailing Wage All work performed in connection with execution of this contract work shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies (including, without limitation, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including the prevailing wage provisions of sections 1770 et seq. of the California Labor Code), and (b) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction. The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, causes of action and liabilities based upon or arising from the failure of any work related to the Agreement to comply with all such applicable legal requirements, including, without limitation, any such claims, causes of action or liabilities that may be asserted against or incurred by City with respect to or in any way arising from the Project’s compliance with or failure to comply with applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state labor requirements including, without limitation, the requirements of California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. Contractor agrees that all public work (as defined in California Labor Code section (1720) performed pursuant to this Agreement (the “Public Work”), if any, shall comply with the requirements of California Labor Code sections 1770 et seq. City makes no representation or statement that the project or any portion thereof, is or is not a “public work” as defined in California Labor Code section 1720. In all bid specifications, contracts and subcontracts for any such Public Work, Contractor shall obtain the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Public Work, and shall include such rates in the bid specifications, contract or subcontract. Such bid specifications, contract or subcontract must contain the following provision: “It shall be mandatory for the Contractor to pay not less than the said prevailing rate of wages to all workers employed by the contractor in the execution of this contract. The Contractor expressly agrees to comply with the penalty provisions of California Labor Code section 1775 and the payroll record keeping requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.” 21 E. Registration with the Department of Industrial Relations In accordance with Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, no contractor or subcontractor shall be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions for bid purposes only under Labor Code Section 1771.1(a)]. The Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number shall be listed for the Contractor and each subcontractor, if any, in the bid proposal. 22 EXHIBIT A FEE & COST PROPOSAL 23 FEE & COST PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL EMERGENCY AND UNEXPECTED TASK PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR SERVICES (additional labor/equipment/material rates may be added/clarified with a separate attachment) MOBILIZATION COST /TASK ORDER MINIMUM CALL OUT (in dollars or hours, if applicable) EQUIPMENT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION E1 Pick-Up Truck HOUR $ E2 Flatbed Truck HOUR $ E3 Bed Trailer HOUR $ E4 Skidsteer HOUR $ E5 Small Excavator HOUR $ E6 Medium Excavator HOUR $ E7 Large Excavator HOUR $ E8 Backhoe HOUR $ 24 E9 Dump Truck/Super 10 HOUR $ E10 Truck and Pup HOUR $ E11 Water Truck HOUR $ E12 Sweeper HOUR $ E13 Wheel Loader HOUR $ E14 Skip Loader HOUR $ E15 Air Compressor w/Jack Hammer HOUR $ E16 Hydraulic Breaker HOUR $ E17 Asphalt Paver HOUR $ E18 Compaction Wheel HOUR $ E19 Wacker HOUR $ E20 Vibratory Compactor HOUR $ E21 Generator HOUR $ E22 Sawcutter HOUR $ E23 Pavement Grinder HOUR $ E24 Steam Roller/Sheep’s Foot Roller HOUR $ 25 LABOR NO. DESCRIPTION STANDARD OVERTIME DOUBLE TIME L1 Superintendent $ $ $ L2 Project Manager $ $ $ L3 Foreman/Operator $ $ $ L4 Driver $ $ $ L5 Flagger $ $ $ L6 Laborer $ $ $ MATERIAL NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE M1 AC /TON M2 AB /TON M3 Slurry Seal /SF M4 PCC Concrete - 3250 /TON M5 PCC Concrete - 4500 /TON 26 M6 CAB /TON M7 CMB /TON M8 REAS /TON MARK-UP FOR ITEMS NOT NOTED ABOVE NO. DESCRIPTION PERCENTAGE O1 Material 15% O2 Equipment/Rental 15% O3 Labor/Subcontractor 15% ADJUSTMENTS Provide any anticipated rate/cost adjustments as a separate attachment, if necessary. 27 EXHIBIT B SAMPLE CONTRACT <INSTRUCTIONS: THIS TEMPLATE IS FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES ONLY. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, USE APPROPRIATE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OR NON-DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TEMPLATE.> Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT for <On-Call> <SPECIFY TYPE> Services between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & <Contractor Name> <Address> <City, State, Zip Code> <Phone Number> This Maintenance Services Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of <INSERT DATE> (the “Effective Date”), by and between <CONTRACTOR’S COMPLETE LEGAL NAME> (“Contractor”), <TYPE OF LEGAL ENTITY AND STATE OF FORMATION (e.g., a California corporation, partnership, limited liability company, sole proprietorship, etc.)> and the City of Seal Beach (“City”), a California charter city, (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 RECITALS A. City desires certain <on-call> <SPECIFY TYPE> maintenance services. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City issued a Request for Proposals or other solicitation on <DATE> for the <INSERT RFP TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED> and as further defined and described with specificity in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. Contractor submitted a proposal dated <DATE> to perform the maintenance services defined and described in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. C. Contractor represents that it is registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR Registration #_________), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (CSLB License #________), and that Contractor is licensed in the following classifications:__________________<SPECIFY REQUIRED CLASSIFICATIONS>. Contractor further represents that it is fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement by virtue of its experience, and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. D. City desires to retain Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor desires to serve City to perform those services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Contractor’s Services. In compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those <TYPE> maintenance services (collectively “Services”) set forth in the Request for Proposals (“RFP”), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and Contractor’s accepted Proposal for <TYPE> Maintenance Services (“Proposal”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference, all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. The Services relate to the following City project:____________________________________________.> <FOR ON-CALL AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: Strictly on an on-call basis, and in compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those services (collectively “Services”) in the Request for Proposals or other solicitation (“RFP”) attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and Contractor’s 3 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 accepted Proposal (“Proposal”) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference), all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. The Services relate to the following City project:_________________________________. Given the on-call nature of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that there is no guarantee that City shall request any Services hereunder.> 1.2. Agreement Documents; Order of Precedence. 1.2.1. The Agreement Documents include this Agreement itself, and all of the following: (i) the RFP (Exhibit A), including all standards, appendices and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and (ii) the Proposal (Exhibit B); and (iii) Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C); and (iv) Performance Bond (Exhibit D); and (v) Payment Bond (Exhibit E), etc. <INSERT ANY ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT>, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2.2. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit or incorporated documents, the order of precedence shall be as follows: (i) this Agreement; and then (ii) Exhibit C (Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements); and then (iii) Exhibit D (Performance Bond); and then (iv) Exhibit E (Payment Bond); and then (v) Exhibit A (the RFP), including all standards, appendices and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and then (vi) Exhibit B (the Proposal), shall control. In the event that there is any conflict between this Agreement, on the one hand, and Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, etc., on the other hand, this Agreement shall control. <CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE MAY BE MADE BASED ON THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE INCLUDED IN AN RFP, BUT IN ALL CASES THE AGREEMENT AND LABOR LAW PROVISIONS SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER EXHIBITS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE> 1.3. Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. City relies upon the skill of Contractor, and Contractor’s staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Contractor and Contractor’s staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Contractor shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. The acceptance of Contractor’s work by City shall not operate as a release of Contractor from such standard of care and workmanship. 4 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 1.4. Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (i) has investigated and considered the scope and level of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from City’s Representative. 1.5. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.6. Additional Services. Contractor will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council <IF CONTRACT AWARDED BY CITY MANAGER, SUBSTITUTE: “by the City Manager”> as specified in Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 . Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization <FOR CITY MANAGER-APPROVED AGREEMENTS, SUBSTITUTE “prior City Manager authorization”>. 2.0 Term 2.1. Original Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on <DATE>, and shall remain in full force and effect until <DATE>, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. <IF THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO ELECT ADDITIONAL TERM(S), SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THE FIRST SENTENCE> The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of <SPECIFY NUMBER OF YEARS> (“Original Term”) and shall expire at midnight on <DATE>, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided by this Agreement.> 2.2. <ADD SUBSECTION 2.2 ONLY IF CITY INCLUDES THE OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM; AND IF SO, MODIFY THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL TERMS AS APPROPRIATE>Extensions. City, at its sole option, may elect to extend the Original Term of this Agreement, upon the same terms and conditions, for up to <NUMBER, e.g., one, two, etc.> additional terms of one year each (“extension”), by providing written notice to Contractor at least one month prior to the expiration of an existing term. If timely elected by City, the first 5 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 extension shall have a term extending from <DATE> through and including <DATE>, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to this Agreement. If timely elected by City, the second extension shall be from <DATE> through and including <DATE>, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Any extension shall not be effective except upon execution of a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the City Manager and Contractor’s authorized representatives. 3.0 Contractor’s Compensation 3.1. Original Term. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A and B, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for the Services but in no event will City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $_____ (____ dollars) <TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT> for the <Original> Term. Payment for any additional work authorized by City pursuant to Subsection 1.6 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed the cumulative amount established by the City Council <City Manager> at the time of award for the Original Term. 3.2. <INCLUDE THIS PROVISION ONLY IF THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES SUBSECTION 2.2. REGARDING THE CITY’S OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM>Extensions. In the event that City elects to extend the Original Term in accordance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement, and in consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A and B, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $____________ (_______ dollars) <INSERT MAXIMUM DOLLAR AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR EACH EXTENDED TERM> for each extension. Payment for any additional work authorized by City for each extension pursuant to Subsection 1.6 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed the cumulative amount established by the City Council <City Manager> at the time of award for each extension. <IF NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED, YOU MAY DELETE ALL OF SUBSECTION 3.2, OR ALTERNATIVELY, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TEXT: “3.2 [Not applicable.].”> 4.0 Method of Payment Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the Services performed 6 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 for each day in the period. City will pay Contractor within 30 days of receiving Contractor’s invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Contractor. 5.0 Termination 5.1. Termination by City. 5.1.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, upon giving Contractor written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.1.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days’ notice to Contractor if Contractor fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 5.2. Termination by Contractor. This Agreement may be terminated by Contractor based on reasonable cause, by serving written notice of termination to City, provided that Contractor has first served City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within 30 days of receipt of such notice. <ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, A LONGER NOTIFICATION PERIOD MAY BE NECESSARY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES> 5.3. Obligations Upon Termination. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Contractor shall cease all work under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of notice of termination from City under Subsection 5.1, or immediately upon City’s acknowledgment of receipt of Contractor’s notice of termination to City under Subsection 5.1. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1 of this Agreement) and all other documents, writings, and/or deliverables produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided that Contractor is not then in breach, City shall pay Contractor for any portion of the Services completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services, based on an amount agreed to by City and Contractor. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Contractor be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and Contractor shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Contractor for the full performance of the Services up to date of 7 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 termination. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. <INSERT FULL NAME> is the Contractor's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. <INSERT FULL NAME> shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Contractor may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Contractor: <Contractor> <Address> <City, State, Zip Code> Attn: <Contractor Representative> 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Permits and Licenses For the duration of this Agreement, Contractor and all subcontractors performing the Services shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (“CSLB”). Contractor and all subcontractors performing any of the Services shall possess any and all current licenses in the classifications, and certifications, listed in the RFP (Exhibit A) to perform the Services. Contractor and all of Contractor’s employees and other personnel shall also obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, registrations, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under 8 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. <AS APPROPRIATE, THIS SECTION MAY BE MODIFIED TO LIST THE SPECIFIC REGISTRATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES, ETC., NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES> 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Contractor or by Contractor’s employees or other personnel under Contractor’s supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods, and details by which Contractor’s employees and other personnel will perform the Services. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9.2. All of Contractor’s employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor and Contractor’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Contractor’s personnel. Contractor’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Contractor’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Contractor’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Contractor’s choice, except (i) as otherwise required for the performance of Services on City real property, facilities, vehicles or equipment; (ii) as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Contractor’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Contractor’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or (iii) as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Contractor from time to time for Contractor’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 9.3. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Contractor’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income 9 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 9.4. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section 9.0. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Contractor agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall assure compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), commencing at Government Code § 20000, as amended by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”), and the regulations of PERS, as amended from time to time. Without limitation to the foregoing, Contractor shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 10.2. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s violation of any provisions of this Section 10.0. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.0 Ownership of Work Product 11.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all field notes and other notes, draft and final reports, drawings, specifications, data, surveys, studies, plans, maps, models, photographs, images, ideas, concepts, designs including but not limited to website designs, source code, object code, computer files, electronic data and/or electronic files, other media of any kind whatsoever and any other documents and written material of any kind created, developed, prepared or used by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement (collectively “Work Product”) shall be considered “works made for hire” for the benefit of City. Upon completion of, or in the event of, termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Contractor's consent; provided that any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product by City for any purpose other than the purpose for which the Work Product was prepared or provided under this Agreement shall be at City’s own risk. Contractor shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Work Product. 11.2. Contractor hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 11.1. 11.3. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, 11 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 agents, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (i) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (ii) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 11.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Contractor shall deliver to City all Work Product and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Contractor prepares a document on a computer, Contractor shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 12.0 Confidentiality 12.1. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees, trade secrets, and/or other information that may be protected under other applicable laws relating to privacy, confidentiality and/or privilege. Contractor covenants that all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1), and/or any other data, documents, writings, discussion, or other information created, developed, prepared, received by or provided to Contractor in the performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor shall not release or disclose any such Work Product, data, documents, writings, discussion or other information to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property 12 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 located within City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary,” provided Contractor gives City timely notice of such court order or subpoena. 12.2. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the Services performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 12.3. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of City. Contractor is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors, and Contractor shall monitor and review all work and other services performed by any subcontractor to ensure that all Services performed by such subcontractor comply with the requirements and provisions of this Agreement. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment, Transfer or Delegation Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any of its rights, obligations or interest in this Agreement, or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason. Any purported assignment, transfer or delegation without City’s consent shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, payroll, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to 13 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Upon 24 hours’ notice by City, during regular business hours Contractor shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City’s rights under this Section 15.0 shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and other applicable state and federal laws. City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Contractor shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Contractor shall immediately report to City any hazardous condition noted by Contractor. 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Requirements. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Contractor has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, death, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). If Contractor is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so 14 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 that Contractor and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds. 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto). 17.2.3. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions) Liability Insurance: <IF APPLICABLE; DELETION OF PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY’S RISK MANAGER> Contractor shall maintain professional liability (or errors and omissions liability) insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement. If a “claims made” policy is provided, then the policy shall be endorsed to provide an extended reporting period of not less than three years. 17.2.4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law; and Employer’s Liability: with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease. 17.2.5. <INSERT OTHER COVERAGES REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC AGREEMENT AS REQUIRED BY RISK MANAGER (e.g., Cyber Liability Insurance, Crime Policy or Fidelity Bond, Pollution and Environmental Liability Insurance, Excess/Umbrella Liability; etc.)> . 17.3. Acceptability of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to City. 17.4. Additional Insureds. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, 15 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor or for which Contractor is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by City to state: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days (or ten days for nonpayment) prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City; (ii) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.6. Primary and Non-Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it. 17.7. Separation of Insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by City. Contractor guarantees that, at the option of City, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or (ii) Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, 16 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery and all rights of subrogation against City, and shall require similar express written waivers from any subcontractor. 17.10. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions (Non-Estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on City’s part to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirement does not impose additional obligations on City, nor does it waive any rights hereunder. 17.11. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Contractor does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Contractor’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor’s expense, the premium thereon. Contractor shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Contractor. 17.12. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Contractor may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Contractor shall maintain current endorsements on file with City’s Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Contractor shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Contractor shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.13. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. 17 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 17.14. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor may also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Services. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Contractor. 17.15. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of demands or claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required insurance policies. 17.16. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements/Pass-Through Clause. Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section<except as otherwise waived in writing by City’s Risk Manager>. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverages and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to submit all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the Services upon City’s request. 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend 18.1. Indemnities. 18.1.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 18.0), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens or losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Claims”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to persons or property, including bodily injury, death, personal injury, and property damage, in any manner arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement and/or any acts, errors, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, or suppliers, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor shall bear 18 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 legal liability) in the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement, except to the extent the Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Contractor shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Contractor shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.1.2. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.2. Subcontractor Indemnification. Contractor shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. If Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity agreements, Contractor shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement, any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor’s subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor’s subcontractor shall bear the legal liability) in the performance of this Agreement, except to the extent the Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.3. Workers’ Compensation Acts Not Limiting. Contractor’s indemnification obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 18.4. Indemnification Not Limited By Insurance. Procurement of insurance by Contractor is not and shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor’s liability, or as a waiver of or limitation on full performance of Contractor’s duties of defense and indemnification, under this Section 18.0 or under any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the 19 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Claims or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees as defined in this Section 18.0, and Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Contractor, City, or any of the other Indemnitees. 18.5. Survival of Terms. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 19.0 Bonds <MODIFICATION OR DELETION OF BOND REQUIREMENTS MUST BE REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY AND REQUIRES APPROVAL OF RISK MANAGER> 19.1. Performance Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by City in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to City concurrently with this Agreement a Performance Bond in the amount of the total, not-to-exceed compensation indicated in this Agreement. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until it has been received and approved by City. The required form of Performance Bond is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. 19.2. Payment Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by City in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to City concurrently with this Agreement a Payment Bond in the amount of the total, not-to-exceed compensation indicated in this Agreement. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until it has been received and approved by City. The required form of Payment Bond is attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference. 19.3. Bond Provisions. Should, in City's sole opinion, any bond become insufficient or any surety be found to be unsatisfactory, Contractor shall renew or replace the affected bond within 10 days of receiving notice from City. In the event the surety or Contractor intends to reduce or cancel any required bond, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to City, and Contractor shall post acceptable replacement bonds at least ten (10) days prior to expiration of the original bonds. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under this Agreement until any replacement bonds required by this Section are accepted by City. To the extent, if any, that the total compensation is increased in accordance with the Agreement, the Contractor shall, upon request of City, cause the amount of the bonds to be increased accordingly and shall promptly deliver satisfactory evidence of such increase to City. To the extent available, the bonds shall further provide that no change or alteration of the Agreement (including, without limitation, an increase in the total compensation, as referred to above), extensions of time, or modifications of the time, terms, or conditions of 20 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 payment to the Contractor, will release the surety. If the Contractor fails to furnish any required bond, City may terminate this Agreement for cause. 19.4. Surety Qualifications. Only bonds executed by an admitted surety insurer, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, shall be accepted. The surety must be a California-admitted surety with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII and satisfactory to City. If a California-admitted surety insurer issuing bonds does not meet these requirements, the insurer will be considered qualified if it is in conformance with Section 995.660 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and proof of such is provided to City. 20.0 Warranty 20.1. Warranty Period. The Services shall be warranted by Contractor against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one year. The warranty period shall start on the date the work is completed as determined by the Project Administrator. 20.2. Commencement. The warranty period for specific items covered under manufacturers’ or suppliers’ warranties shall commence on the date they are placed into service at the direction of or as approved by the City Representative in writing. 20.3. Assignment. All warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers, of any tier, for the materials furnished and work performed shall be assigned, in writing, to City, and such warranties shall be delivered to the City Representative prior to acceptance of Contractor’s performance of the Agreement. 20.4. Warranty Obligation. Contractor shall re-perform any defective work, and replace or repair any defective materials, in a manner satisfactory to the City Representative, after notice to do so from the City Representative, and within the time specified in the notice. If Contractor fails to re-perform the work or make such replacement or repairs within the time specified in the notice, City may perform the work, replacement or repairs at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall promptly pay any invoice for such work, repair or replacement. This Section shall survive expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 21.0 Non-Discrimination Equal and Employment Opportunity Contractor affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against any of its employees, applicants for employment, contractors or subcontractors because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical 21 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 condition, genetic information, military or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by law. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against City of any of City’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, or subconsultants, on any basis prohibited by law. 22.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 23.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records To the extent that this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in the California Labor Code, Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 24.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 25.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 26.0 Government Code Claim Compliance In addition to any and all requirements of this Agreement pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code Section 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra 22 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 work, additional services, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against City. 27.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought by reason of, that arises out of, and/or relates to any dispute under any provision of this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both). 28.0 Non-Exclusive Agreement City reserves the right to employ or retain any other contractors in connection with <this Project> <the Services>. 29.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement. 30.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (i) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (ii) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (iii) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 31.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 31.1. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person 23 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§ 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 31.2. Contractor further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Contractor paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 31.3. Contractor warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this Section. 32.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Contractor of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Contractor for anything done, furnished or relating to Contractor’s work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City’s check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 24 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 33.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Contractor shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City’s review of Contractor’s report or plans. Should Contractor fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Contractor under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 34.0 Non-Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Contractor by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Contractor’s Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Contractor’s Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 35.0 Mutual Cooperation 35.1. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Contractor with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Contractor’s proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 35.2. Contractor’s Cooperation. Contractor agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City’s representative and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Services to be performed. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 36.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 37.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from 25 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 38.0 Titles and Headings The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it. 39.0 Recitals City and Contractor acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 40.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 41.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Contractor is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. [signatures on following page] 26 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: _________________________ Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Attest: By: _________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: _________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: <INSERT COMPLETE LEGAL NAME> <INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY (e.g., a California corporation> By: __________________________ Name: __ Its: By: __________________________ Name: ___ Its: (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OR OTHER SOLICITATION (RFP NO. XXXX, “________________________” <INSERT TITLE AND DATE OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF TYPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES> Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT B CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL (Proposal for XXXXXXXXXXX Maintenance Services, dated XXXXXXX) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT C TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Contractor acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works”, Contractor shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Contractor shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Contractor or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Contractor’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. 7. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Contractor shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Contractor and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Contractor or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 10. Contractor acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Contractor shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Contractor, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Contractor under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT D FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND (If and when required under Section 19.0 or Exhibit A of Agreement) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Bond No. __________ FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), has awarded to (Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: (Project name) WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and , (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than the total Contract Price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statute of limitations as it applies to an action on this Bond. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT E PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) (If and when required under Section 19.0 or Exhibit A of Agreement) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Bond No. __________ PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), State of California, has awarded to (“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: (Project name) WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the Work, to file a good and sufficient payment Bond with the City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. EXHIBIT B Contractor’s Proposal EXHIBIT C TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Contractor acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works”, Contractor shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Contractor shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Contractor or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Contractor’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. 7. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Contractor shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Contractor and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Contractor or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 10. Contractor acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Contractor shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Contractor, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Contractor under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & PaveWest, LLC 11700 166th Street Artesia, CA 90701 (562) 694-3113 This Professional Maintenance Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of October 27, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), by and between PaveWest LLC, (“Contractor”), a California limited liability company, and the City of Seal Beach (“City”), a California charter city, (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 23 RECITALS A. City desires certain on-call emergency and unexpected task asphalt maintenance and repair services. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by the City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City issued a Request for Proposal on May 22, 2025, for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services. Contractor submitted a proposal dated July 3, 2025 to perform the maintenance and repair services in response to the Request for Proposals. C. Contractor represents that the principal members of its firm are licensed and registered California contractors (CSLB License #968049, DIR #1000007773) and are fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner by virtue of the training, experience and education of its principals and employees; and it desires to perform such services as provided herein. D. City desires to engage Contractor to provide on-call emergency and unexpected task asphalt maintenance and repair services in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Contractor’s Services. Strictly on an on-call emergency or unexpected task basis, in compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those asphalt maintenance and repair services (collectively “Services”) set forth in the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) (Exhibit A), and Contractor’s accepted Proposal (“Proposal”) (Exhibit B), and the Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C), attached and incorporated herein by this reference, all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. Given the on-call emergency or unexpected task nature of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that there is no guarantee that City shall request any Services hereunder. 1.2. Agreement Documents; Incorporation by Reference; Order of Precedence. 3 of 22 1.2.1. The Agreement Documents include this Agreement and all of the following: (i) the RFP (Exhibit A), including all the Standard Specifications, special provisions, appendices, and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; (ii) the Proposal (Exhibit B); and (iii) Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C) all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2.2. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit or incorporated documents, the order of precedence shall be as follows: (i) this Agreement; and then (ii) Exhibit C (Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements); and then (iii) Exhibit A (the RFP) including all the Standard Specifications, special provisions, appendices, and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and then Exhibit B (the Proposal) shall control. 1.3. Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. City relies upon the skill of Contractor, and Contractor’s staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Contractor and Contractor’s staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Contractor shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. The acceptance of Contractor’s work by City shall not operate as a release of Contractor from such standard of care and workmanship. 1.4. Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (i) has investigated and considered the scope and level of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from City’s Representative. 1.5. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.6. Additional Services. Contractor will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may 4 of 23 authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term 2.1. Original Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of three (3) years (“Original Term”) and shall expire at midnight on October 27, 2028, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided by this Agreement. 2.2. Extensions. The City, at its sole option, may elect to extend the Original Term of this Agreement, upon the same terms and conditions, for up to two (2) additional terms of one year each (“extension”), by providing written notice to Contractor at least one month prior to the expiration of an existing term. If timely elected by the City, the first extension shall have a term extending from October 27, 2028 through and including October 27, 2029, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to this Agreement. If timely elected by the City, the second extension shall be from October 27, 2029 through and including October 27, 2030, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Any extension shall not be effective except upon execution of a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the City Manager and Contractor’s authorized representatives. 3.0 Contractor’s Compensation 3.1. Original Term. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A, B and C, attached hereto, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for the Services assigned by City but in no event will the City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Dollars) for the Original Term. 3.1. Extensions. In the event that City elects to extend the Original Term in accordance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will the City pay more than the total not-to- exceed amount of $150,000.00 (One Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars) for each extension. 3.2. Additional Work. Any additional work authorized by the City Council pursuant to this Section will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B. 5 of 22 4.0 Method of Payment Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the Services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Contractor within 30 days of receiving Contractor’s invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Contractor. 5.0 Termination 5.1. Termination by City. 5.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, upon giving Contractor written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days’ notice to Contractor if Contractor fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 5.2. Termination by Contractor. This Agreement may be terminated by Contractor based on reasonable cause, by serving written notice of termination to City, provided that Contractor has first served City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within 30 days of receipt of such notice. 5.3. Obligations Upon Termination. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Contractor shall cease all work under this Agreement immediately upon the effective termination date as specified in the notice of termination. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1 of this Agreement) and all other documents, writings, and/or deliverables produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided that Contractor is not then in breach, City shall pay Contractor for any portion of the Services satisfactorily completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services satisfactorily performed, based on an amount agreed to by City and Contractor. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Contractor be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and 6 of 22 Contractor shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Contractor for the full performance of the Services up to date of termination. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. Lisa Mangan is the Contractor's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. Lisa Mangan shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Contractor may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Contractor: PaveWest, LLC 11700 166th Street Artesia, CA 90701 Attn: Lisa Mangan 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Permits and Licenses For the term of this Agreement, Contractor and all of Contractor’s employees and subcontractors shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (“CSLB”). Contractor and all subcontractors performing any of the Services shall possess any and all current licenses in the classifications, and certifications, listed in the RFP (Exhibit A) to perform the Services. Contractor, its employees and subcontractors shall further obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all other necessary licenses, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services 7 of 22 under this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Contractor or by Contractor’s employees or other personnel under Contractor’s supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods, and details by which Contractor’s employees and other personnel will perform the Services. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9.2. All of Contractor’s employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor and Contractor’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Contractor’s personnel. Contractor’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Contractor’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Contractor’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Contractor’s choice, except (i) as otherwise required for the performance of Services on City real property, facilities, vehicles, or equipment; (ii) as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Contractor’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Contractor’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or (iii) as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Contractor from time to time for Contractor’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 9.3. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Contractor’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor 8 of 22 and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 9.4. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section 9.0. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Contractor agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall assure compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, commencing at Government Code § 20000 (“PERL”), as amended by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”), and the regulations of PERS, as amended from time to time. Without limitation to the foregoing, Contractor shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10.2. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role 9 of 22 of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s violation of any provisions of this Section 10.0. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.0 Ownership of Work Product 11.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all field notes and other notes, draft and final reports, drawings, data, surveys, studies, plans, maps, models, specifications, photographs, images, ideas, concepts, designs including but not limited to website designs, source code, object code, computer files, electronic data and/or electronic files, other media of any kind whatsoever, and any other documents and written material of any kind, created, developed or used by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement (collectively “Work Product”) shall be considered “works made for hire,” for the benefit of City. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Contractor’s consent; provided that any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product by City for any purpose other than the purpose for which the Work Product was prepared or provided under this Agreement shall be at City’s own risk. Contractor shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Work Product. 11.2. Contractor hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 11.1. 11.3. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. 10 of 22 Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (i) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (ii) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 11.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Contractor shall deliver to City all Work Product and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Contractor prepares a document on a computer, Contractor shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 12.0 Confidentiality 12.1. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees, trade secrets, and/or other information that may be protected under other applicable laws relating to privacy, confidentiality and/or privilege. Contractor covenants that all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1) and/or any other data, documents, writings, discussion or other information created, developed, received or provided by Contractor, and/or provided by City to Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor shall not release or disclose any such Work Product, data, documents, writings, discussion or other information to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Contractor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary,” provided Contractor gives City timely notice of such court order or subpoena. 12.2. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and/or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, 11 of 22 interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the Services performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 12.3. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City, and any subcontracting shall be at Contractor’s sole cost and expense. Contractor is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. Authorized subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making the subcontractor subject to all requirements of this Agreement, and Contractor shall monitor and review all work and other services performed by any subcontractor to ensure that all Services performed by such subcontractor comply with this Agreement. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment, Transfer or De legation Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any of its rights, obligations or interests in this Agreement, or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason. Any purported assignment, transfer or delegation without City’s consent shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. At all times during regular business hours, Contractor shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the 12 of 22 performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least four (4) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City’s rights under this Section 15.0 shall survive for four (4) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and any other applicable state and federal laws. City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Contractor shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Contractor shall immediately report to the City any hazardous condition noted by Contractor. 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Requirements. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Contractor has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by Contractor, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, death, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). If Contractor is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so that Contractor and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds. 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as 13 of 22 Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto). 17.2.3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law; and Employer’s Liability: with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease. 17.3. Acceptability of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to City. 17.4. Additional Insureds. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor or for which Contractor is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by City to state: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days (or ten days for nonpayment) prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City; (ii) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.6. Primary and Non-Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying 14 of 22 coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it. 17.7. Separation of Insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by City. Contractor guarantees that, at the option of City, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or (ii) Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery and all rights of subrogation against City, and shall require similar express written waivers from any subcontractors. 17.10. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions (Non-Estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on City’s part to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirement does not impose additional obligations on City, nor does it waive any rights under this Section. 17.11. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Contractor does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section 17.0 in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Contractor’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor’s expense, the premium thereon. Contractor shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Contractor. 17.12. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance 15 of 22 and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Contractor may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Contractor shall maintain current endorsements on file with City’s Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Contractor shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Contractor shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.13. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. 17.14. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor may also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Services. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Contractor. 17.15. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of demands or claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required insurance policies. 17.16. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements/Pass-Through Clause. Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverages and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to submit all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the Services upon City’s request. 16 of 22 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to De fend 18.1. Indemnities. 18.1.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 18.0) from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens and/or losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Claims”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to persons or property, including bodily injury, death, personal injury, and property damage, in any manner arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement and/or any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct, of Contractor, its officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, or contractors, or their officers, directors, managers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor shall bear the legal liability) in the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Claims to the extent arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Contractor shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Claims with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Contractor shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.1.2 Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless city in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.2. Subcontractor Indemnification. Contractor shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. If Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity agreements, Contractor shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement, any violations of law, any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor’s officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors, or their officers, agents, 17 of 22 servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors (or any entity or individual that Contractor’s subcontractors shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except to the extent such Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.3. Workers’ Compensation Acts Not Limiting. Contractor’s obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives any statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City and the other Indemnitees. 18.4. Indemnification Not Limited By Insurance. Procurement of insurance by Contractor is not and shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor’s liability, or as a waiver of or limitation on full performance of Contractor’s duties of defense and indemnification, under this Section 18.0 or under any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Claims or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees as defined in this Section 18.0, and Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Contractor, City, or any of the other Indemnitees. 18.5. Survival of Terms. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 19.0 Warranty 19.1. Warranty Period. The Services shall be warranted by Contractor against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one year. The warranty period shall start on the date the work is completed as determined by the Project Administrator. 19.2. Commencement. The warranty period for specific items covered under manufacturers’ or suppliers’ warranties shall commence on the date they are placed into service at the direction of or as approved by the City Representative in writing. 19.3. Assignment. All warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers, of any tier, for the materials furnished and work performed shall be assigned, in writing, to City, and such warranties shall be delivered to the City Representative prior to acceptance of Contractor’s performance of the Agreement. 18 of 22 19.4. Warranty Obligation. Contractor shall re-perform any defective work, and replace or repair any defective materials, in a manner satisfactory to the City Representative, after notice to do so from the City Representative, and within the time specified in the notice. If Contractor fails to re-perform the work or make such replacement or repairs within the time specified in the notice, City may perform the work, replacement or repairs at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall promptly pay any invoice for such work, repair or replacement. This Section shall survive expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 20.0 Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Contractor affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by law. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against City of any of City’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, designated volunteers, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, or subconsultants, on any basis prohibited by law. 21.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 22.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records If this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in the California Labor Code, then Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 23.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 19 of 22 24.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 25.0 Government Code Claim Compliance In addition to any and all requirements of this Agreement pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code Section 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against City. 26.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought by reason of, that arises out of, and/or relates to any dispute under this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both). 27.0 Non-Exclusive Agreement City reserves the right to employ or retain any other contractors in connection with the Services. 28.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement, and their respective approved successors and assigns, if any, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement. 29.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it 20 of 22 be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (i) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (ii) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (iii) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 30.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 30.1. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§ 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 30.2. Contractor further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Contractor paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 30.3. Contractor warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this Subsection. 31.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Contractor of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Contractor for anything done, furnished or relating to Contractor’s work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation 21 of 22 of City’s check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 32.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Contractor shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City’s review of Contractor’s report or plans. Should Contractor fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Contractor under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 33.0 Non-Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Contractor by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Contractor’s Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Contractor’s Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 34.0 Mutual Cooperation 34.1. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Contractor with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Contractor’s proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 34.2. Contractor’s Cooperation. Contractor agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City’s representative and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Services to be performed. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 35.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be 22 of 22 construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 36.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 37.0 Titles and Headings The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it. 38.0 Recitals City and Contractor acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 39.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Contractor is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: _________________________ Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Attest: By: _________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: _________________________ Nick Ghrielli, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: PaveWest, LLC, a California limited liability company By: __________________________ Don Mangan President By: __________________________ Lisa Mangan Program Manager (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) EXHIBIT A Request for Proposal ii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. QUALIFICATIONS III. SCOPE OF SERVICES IV. PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS V. SCHEDULE VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS VII. FEE & COST PROPOSAL VIII. INTERVIEW IX. SELECTION PROCESS X. SPECIAL PROVISIONS XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS EXHIBIT A – Fee & Cost Proposal EXHIBIT B – Sample Contract 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON-CALL EMERGENCY AND UNEXPECTED TASK PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR SERVICES ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MUST REGISTER AS A VENDOR ON THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANETBIDS PORTAL. COMMUNICATION AND ADDENDA, IF ANY, WILL BE DISTRIBUTED VIA PLANETBIDS. I. INTRODUCTION The City of Seal Beach (“City”) owns and maintains approximately 41.8 centerline miles of pavement along with a network of alleyways. The City is seeking one or more contractors who would be available to provide on-call pavement repair services in both emergency and unplanned situations, for an anticipated term of three (3) years. The final agreement amount and term will depend on the quality, diversity, responsiveness of the received proposals, and the future need for emergency and unexpected task work. Work shall comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (2018), City of Seal Beach standards and provisions, Caltrans Standard Specifications, and any Agencies Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s). Due to the on-call/emergency nature of this contract, no work is guaranteed, even if awarded. The scope, work schedule, and cost for each requested emergency or unexpected task will be negotiated on a project-by-project basis, based on the rates specified in the response. The City reserves the right to not accept the Contractor’s proposed scope and fee, and to let any project for competitive bid at the discretion of the City. II. QUALIFICATIONS Minimum Qualifications · Valid California Contractor’s Class A (General Engineering) license issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs – Contractors State License Board by the time of proposal submittal and shall remain valid for the term of the Agreement. · Valid City of Seal Beach business license for the term of the Agreement, if selected. · Minimum ten (10) years of professional pavement maintenance and repair service experience. · Ability to mobilize and respond to emergency job sites, as necessary within the time frames provided in this RFP. 4 · Maintain, or have the ability to quickly acquire, all necessary labor, equipment, and material to promptly complete the Work. Desirable Qualifications · Knowledge and experience with the City of Seal Beach’s standards, provisions, and practices. · Familiarity with public sector on-call maintenance and repair contracts. · Adequate availability of key team members and equipment. III. SCOPE OF SERVICES Work to be done consists of furnishing all labor, supervision, methods of processes, implements, tools, machinery, safety equipment, traffic control, materials and proper licensing required to identify, list, and perform pavement maintenance and repair services in those areas designated by the City on an emergency or unexpected task basis. Due to the on-call/as-needed nature of this Agreement, Work may vary according to the need and there is no guarantee that work will be assigned. The Contractor shall furnish and maintain records designating exact locations and areas of repairs and maintenance. Such reports shall be signed by the Contractor and the City. If the City determines that the Contractor has not satisfactorily performed the Work, payment will be withheld for said Work until such time the Work is completed to the satisfaction of the City. All work for which progress payment is made shall be reported on and certified according to the foregoing procedure, and in addition thereto, the City shall certify that the Work has been inspected and completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to payment. The Contractor shall be responsible for timely payment of any subcontractor, materialmen, workers and suppliers. Authorization of Work Unless otherwise noted as an emergency, City will coordinate with Contractor to schedule the work with a minimum seven (7)-day prior notification. In an emergency, Contractor shall respond and mobilize within four (4) hours after initial request from the City for Work under this contract. Response times to extend to 8 hours with prior written consent to City. Contractor shall perform the on-call services described in Section III - Scope of Services (“Services” or “Work”). Upon written request from the City, Contractor shall provide a “letter proposal” for services requested by the City (hereinafter referred to as the “Letter Proposal”). At a minimum, the Letter Proposal shall include, but is not limited to, the following: · A detailed description of the Work to be provided; · The estimated number of hours, by task, and cost to complete the Work; and 5 · A detailed Work schedule. No services shall be provided until the City has provided written acceptance of the Letter Proposal, unless in an emergency situation after Contractor has received a written notice to proceed from the City Engineer or designee. Once authorized to proceed, Contractor shall diligently perform the duties in the approved Letter Proposal or notice to proceed. Progress of Work Time is of the essence on every aspect of the Work. Work shall proceed in an expeditious and orderly manner. The Contractor shall endeavor to avoid service interruptions to the extent feasible. Wherever possible, Work shall be completely finished prior to proceeding to the next location. Any exceptions shall require pre-approval by the City. Alterations The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the quantity of any item or portion of the Work or to omit portions of the Work as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the City. The City may make such alterations or deviations, additions to, or omissions from these specifications, as may be determined during the progress of the work to be necessary and advisable for the proper completion thereof. Such alterations or deviations, additions or omissions shall in no way affect or make void the Agreement. Upon written order of the City, Contractor shall proceed with the Work as increased, decreased or altered. Extra Work 1. Extra work shall not be performed without prior written approval by the City unless public safety is immediately at risk. 2. Extra work may be required, and extra time may be granted, by the City as a result of acts of God, vandalism, theft, civil disturbances, accidents, or improvements. 3. If unit prices are not available, payment for extra work will be based on actual cost of labor, plus wholesale cost of materials, plus an industry standard markup not to exceed 15%. Extra services other than those listed in Exhibit A shall be negotiated on a time-and-material basis with a “not to exceed” amount. Acceptance of Work Done The City, at its sole discretion, will make inspections and determine that the Work has been completed in all respects in accordance with these specifications, and if applicable, accepted. Billing Form, Records and Reports The Contractor shall maintain a record of all work performed, including but not limited to location, types, and amounts maintained/installed/removed. These records shall list the date(s) of the Work performed. A copy of such record shall be provided to the City upon completion of each Task Order. Contractor shall maintain such record through the term of the Agreement, plus three (3) years after Contract termination. 6 The Contractor shall return appropriate and completed Task Orders showing the date and inventory of work performed, signed by an authorized representative of Contractor and attached to each invoice. Contractor shall provide a billing form and progress payment form approved by the City. Method of Work The asphalt pavement repair work shall involve all work necessary to remove and replace asphalt pavement work, as needed to complete the work in place. All Work shall be performed per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book – 2018 edition), City of Seal Beach standards and provisions, Caltrans Standards Specifications, and any Authority Having Jurisdiction’s (AHJ) requirements. The Contractor shall ensure all work performed under this contract be in such a manner as to provide maximum safety to the public and their staff. Contractor must comply with all safety standards required by all regulatory agencies including but not limited to: California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL-OSHA), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the Orange County Environmental Health Care Agency (OCEHC). This also includes local regulatory compliance set forth by the City of Seal Beach. The City reserves the right to issue restraint or cease and desist orders to the Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance under this contract. The Contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to protect work sites free of hazards and/or damages, until the Work is accepted by the City. Any hazardous conditions noted by the Contractor, which is not a result of his/her operations, shall be immediately reported to the City. Rubbish and construction debris shall be promptly removed from the work area and properly disposed of to an approved disposal site. The Contractor shall provide a self-propelled vacuum-type sweeper, or as approved by the City, as required to maintain Work site cleanliness. After removal operations have been completed, the grounds shall be left in a neat, safe, and presentable condition, to the satisfaction of the City. The Contractor shall verify the location of all utilities prior to any Work and shall be held liable for all damages incurred due to his/her operations. Materials The following supplements Section 201 – Concrete, Mortar, and Related Materials and Section 203 – Bituminous Materials in the Greenbook: 201-1 PORTLAND CEMENT CONNRETE 201-1.1 Requirements 201-1.1.1 General Concrete mix designs shall be submitted to City Engineer and staff for approval prior to use in construction. 203-5 SLURRY SEAL 203-5.1 General 7 Slurry seal shall be emulsion-aggregate slurry (EAS) conforming to section 203-5.4, unless otherwise noted. 203-5.4 Emulsion-Aggregate Slurry (EAS) 203-5.4.1 General Emulsion-aggregate slurry (EAS) shall be Type II-CQS-1h conforming to section 203-3. 203-5.4.2 Materials 203-5.4.2.2 Emulsified Asphalt Emulsified asphalt shall be of the quick-set type. 203-5.4.2.4 Latex Latex shall be Ultrapave 65K produced by Textile Rubber and Cement Company, Inc., or equal as approved by the Engineer in advance of ordering the latex additive. It shall be added to the emulsified asphalt by the co-mill method at the emulsion plant at the rate of 2½ percent of weight of the emulsified asphalt. Latex-added emulsified asphalt shall be kept in a suspended state by an agitating mixer and mixed every three days. 203-5.5 Rubberized Emulsion Aggregate Slurry (REAS) – Central Mix 203-5.5.1 General. Utilization of REAS and any mixture related to REAS shall be Central Mix, unless otherwise noted on Plans or by Engineer. 203-6 ASPHALT CONCRETE. 203-6.4 General. Performance graded (PG) asphalt binder shall be PG 64-10 and conform to Table 203-1.2. Asphalt Concrete for roadway pavement, overlay, full depth surface course, trench resurfacing, slot paving, and patching shall be Type C2 PG 64-10. Asphalt concrete for skin patching shall be Type D2 PG-64-10. Asphalt concrete for A.C. curbs and berms shall be D-PG 70-10 with 1% additional binder in a mix design approved by OC Public Works Materials Laboratory per County of Orange, OC Public Works Standard Plan 1805. The contact surfaces of all cold pavement joints, curbs, gutters, etc. shall be painted with Grade SS-1h emulsified asphalt immediately before the adjoining A.C. pavement is placed. Finished surface of the new pavement at the edge of gutter shall be flush with the edge of the gutter in all crosswalk areas and shall be 3/8” higher than the lip of gutter in all other areas. 8 The Contractor shall prevent the formation of carbonized particles caused by overheating asphalt during manufacturing or construction. Asphalt mix design shall be submitted to the Engineer a minimum of ten (10) Days prior to installation. 203-11 ASPHALT RUBBER HOT MIX (ARHM) 203-11.1 General. Composition and grading shall be ARHM-GG-C 203-17 CRACK SEAL 203-17.1 General Crack sealing material shall be RW 306 R sealant and per the following specifications: TEST REQUIREMENT Pen @ 77 degrees F (ATSM D-3407) 25 (+/-5) Pen @ 115 degrees F (ASTM D-3407) 70 max. Softening Point 210-220 ⁰F Ductility @ 77 degrees F, 5cm/min 30 min Force Ductility 4 max Resilience 50-60 Brookfield Viscosity @ 380 degrees F 20-30 poise Flow @ 140 degrees F 0 max Flexibility (90 degree bend in 2 sec. over 1 1/8 mandrel. No cracks. pass @ 0 ⁰F Construction Methods The following supplements Section 302 – Roadway Surfacing in the Greenbook: 302-1 CRACK SEAL 302-1.1 General The Contractor shall apply herbicide to all vegetation one week prior to removal and crack sealing. Removal of vegetation shall consist of routing out cracks to ensure proper vegetation removal from all cracks. Cracks shall be cleaned using heat lance at approximately 2800 degrees to destroy any vegetation root or seed that may be left behind to prevent any further growth. The heat lance application will also clean out all dirt, sand, debris, and moisture. 302-1.2 Sealant Application Sealant shall be applied in prepared cracks at a temperature of approximately 380 degrees Fahrenheit. No more than a 2½” wide and 1/16” thick strip of material shall be applied to pavement surface. Squeegeeing of sealant 9 will not be acceptable due to the inability to consistently meet the required configuration. Any excess sealant material shall be removed from asphalt surfaces. All cracks greater than 1-inch shall be tack-coated and filled with hot asphalt concrete and rolled flush. 302-4 SLURRY SEAL SURFACING 302-4.8 Spreading and Application Prior to beginning slurry seal operations, the Contractor shall furnish current licensed weighmaster’s certificates indicating the net weight capacity of the aggregate bin of each slurry mixer. Except for partial loads to complete a day’s schedule, or for patching, each mixer shall be filled to its rated capacity and the Engineer and the Contractor shall keep a daily count of the number of loads and/or partial loads applied to the streets by each slurry mixer. Each aggregate bin shall have permanent calibration marks in maximum increments of 2 tons. Each slurry crew shall be composed of a coordinator at the Project site at all times, a competent quick-set mixing operator, a competent driver, and sufficient laborers for any handwork, cleanup, and barricading. Slurry shall not be applied prior to 8:00 a.m. and shall not be applied after 1:00 p.m., unless approved by the Engineer. Approval of application after 1:00 p.m. will only be for the purpose of completing the section of Work that is underway. Slurry seal shall be sufficiently cured for vehicle traffic without tracking or damage to the surface by 3:00 p.m. on the same day. In case of damage caused by vehicles and/or pedestrians upon slurry that has not been sufficiently cured, the Contractor shall replace all of the damaged Work at the Contractor’s expense and no additional compensation shall be made by the City. Upon completion of the day’s slurry seal, streets and parking lots shall be temporarily striped within 24 hours. All Stop Bars shall be temporarily striped on the same day before the street is reopened to traffic. Final striping and marking shall be installed no more than ten (10) Days after placement of slurry seal. Prior to applying slurry seal, the Contractor shall clean all work surfaces and remove all loose materials, vegetation, oil, and other foreign material. Additionally all locations with weeds shall be treated by an approved weed-killer before any slurry seal is applied. 302-4.9 Field Sampling and Testing The Contractor shall slurry seal test sections within the construction limits for each batch of slurry seal mix upon the direction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall apply the slurry seal test sections as directed by the Engineer. No slurry seal shall be applied until the test slurry seal sections have been approved by the Engineer. The costs of these slurry seal tests shall be included in the Contract price paid for slurry seal and no additional compensation shall be made by the City. Field samples that do not meet the requirements of Table 302-4.9.1 shall be re-tested. The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs associated with the re-testing of field samples that do not meet the requirements. 302-5 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 302-5.1 General The top layer of asphalt concrete (finish course) shall be placed in a separate lift. Longitudinal joints between two passes of asphalt concrete shall be along a lane line. Leveling course longitudinal joints shall be offset at 10 least two (2) feet from a lane. Level course longitudinal joints and finish course longitudinal joints shall not be located along the same line. Leveling course transverse joints and finish course transverse joints shall be offset approximately five (5) feet from each other, except at the project paving limits. Localized Pavement Removals & Patching Operations – In areas designated for localized pavement removal and replacement, all such AC removals shall occur AFTER the initial pavement grinding operations have been conducted and a site review has been made with either Engineer, City Inspector, or designated City Staff to verify the final limits of required removal and replacement. Contractor shall be required to coordinate such efforts with the City Inspector and to plan accordingly to ensure the required construction phasing requirements are met. Final AC base paving shall be placed and compacted on areas of Localized Patching on the same day as its removal and shall be installed in a single 4 inch lift. 302-5.4 Tack Coat The contact surfaces of all cold pavement joints, curbs, gutters, etc. shall be painted with Grade SS-1h emulsified asphalt immediately before the adjoining A.C. pavement is placed. Additionally, tack coat shall be applied to all cold milled surfaces and all paving joints (not just cold joints). It shall be applied between base and surface courses when the surface course is not placed immediately after the base course, and to existing horizontal and vertical concrete surfaces against which paved surfaces where new asphalt concrete overlaps or abuts existing pavement. Tack coat shall be applied with complete and uniform coverage and shall not be over sprayed onto adjacent pavement when applying. 302-5.6 Rolling Rolling along a joint shall be such that the widest part of the roller is on the hot side of the joint. 302-5.7 Joints Care shall be exercised in connection with the construction of all joints to ensure that the surface of the pavement is true to grade and cross section. Joint lines between successive runs shall be on lane lines. 302-5.8 Adjustment of Water Valve Covers Existing utility covers (whether it be water, sewer, or storm drain related in nature), shall be adjusted to grade by the Contractor per City of Seal Beach Public Works Department Standards and Specifications for utility cover construction. All utility covers shall be protected in place and shall be accessible at all times during construction. The Contractor shall notify the City Public Works Department – Utilities Division forty-eight (48) hours prior to the beginning of work. Removals The Contractor shall dispose of all excess or waste material pursuant to all rules and regulations and local regulators and shall include all fees for such disposal in the appropriate Bid items. Non-reinforced concrete and asphalt wastes generated from the job site shall be disposed of at a facility that crushes such materials for reuse and the Contractor’s expense. Excess soil and other recyclable solid wastes shall not be disposed of at a sanitary landfill. 11 The Contractor shall maintain tonnage records of total solid wastes generated and solid wastes disposed of at a sanitary landfill. The Contractor shall report said tonnage monthly to the Engineer on a form provided by the Engineer and provide appropriate confirmation documentation from the recycling facility. Improvements removed without prior approval of the Engineer are subject to replacement at the Contractor’s cost. Sidewalks to be removed to nearest score line or joint. Asphalt Concrete Pavement Asphalt pavement shall be removed to neatly sawed edges as required by the Engineer. Saw cuts shall be full depth. Where only the surface of existing asphalt pavement is to be removed, the method of removal shall be approved by the Engineer, and a minimum laying depth of 1 inch of new pavement material shall be provided at the join line. Where asphalt pavement adjoins a trench, the edges adjacent to the trench shall be saw cut to neat straight lines before resurfacing to ensure that all areas to be resurfaced are accessible to the rollers used to compact the subgrade or paving materials. Signing & Striping Pavement markers shall comply with Section 81-3, “Pavement Markers”, of the 2022 Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and the CA MUTCD (Latest Edition). Glass beads, paint for striping and pavement markings, and thermoplastic material shall comply with Section 84, “Markings”, of the 2022 Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and the CA MUTCD (Latest Edition). Temporary striping shall be Rapid Dry paint. Final striping material will be determined by the City. The Contractor shall include all costs associated with the restoration of disturbed signing and striping in the appropriate Bid items. Traffic Control The Contractor shall maintain a safe environment at all times. Appropriate State/City traffic control standards and/or policies shall be adhered to for all Work. All Contactor employees shall have access to and are well- versed with the use of the W.A.T.C.H manual (Work Area Traffic Control Handbook) at all times. Personnel, vehicles, equipment, etc. shall be properly outfitted/equipped for the Work being performed. Any restrictions, due to the Work that cause travel ways to be less than State/City minimum requirement, shall have appropriate traffic control (in accordance with State specifications, policies, and procedures installed prior to the beginning of Work and remaining until all Work is completed to the satisfaction of the City. All traffic control, at a minimum, shall adhere to requirements of the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Contractor shall include cost associated with traffic control in the appropriate Bid item. NPDES Regulations The Contractor shall comply with all City, and applicable regulatory agency, regulations regarding NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) Requirements and the City’s Best Management Practices. 12 Contractor shall not discharge anything to the storm drain system or bodies of water. Contractor shall implement the attached Best Management Practices (BMP’s) provided by the City. Contractor shall conduct annual training regarding stormwater regulations and the appropriate BMP’s for all employees working at City facilities. Contractor shall provide to the City annually, by July 1, with certification of the required training on stormwater regulations and the BMP’s, and acknowledgement of adherence to these standards while performing work at the City. Protection of Existing Utilities The Contractor shall take all due precautionary measures to protect all existing utilities. When necessary, the Contractor shall have all utilities located by the responsible agency at least 48-hours prior to commencing any excavation or utility impacting work. The Contractor's attention is directed to the one-call utility notification service provided by Underground Service Alert (USA) (800)-422-4133. Any discrepancy or questions that arises regarding existing utilities shall be brought up to Engineer or Public Works Utilities Division prior to any work being conducted. Protection from Damage The Contractor shall protect all public and private property that is not part of Work. Contractor shall protect property and facilities adjacent to and within the work areas. The work area shall be safe, clean, and presentable condition, as determined by the City. All public or privately owned improvements and facilities shall be restored to their original condition and location, or better, using new material only. Contractor shall repair such damage at Contractor’s sole expense. Nothing herein shall be construed to entitle the Contractor exclusive use of any public right-of-way or City property. Contractor shall conduct his/her operations so as not to interfere with the authorized work of utility companies or other agencies. Withholding of Payment In the event that deficiencies in the Work or non-compliance with applicable standards are determined by the City, the Contractor will have 24 hours from the time of notification to remedy said deficiency. Deductions from the monthly payment due for Work not performed will be based upon the bid worksheets. IV. PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS For answers to questions or particulars regarding this Request for Proposal, all interested parties are to contact staff during the following dates: (Contact between 5/22/25 – 6/13/2025) Sean C. Low Deputy Public Works Director/Maintenance and Utilities Department of Public Works 1776 Adolfo Lopez Dr Seal Beach, CA 90740 slow@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1433 13 (Contact between 6/16/25 – 6/20/2025) Sean Sabo Management Analyst Department of Public Works 211 8th St Seal Beach, CA 90740 ssabo@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1431 The City will respond to all questions and requests for clarification received by June 20, 2025. V. SCHEDULE The following dates reflect the anticipated schedule: Request for Proposal Solicitation May 22, 2025 Pre-Proposal Question Deadline June 20, 2025 Proposal Submittal Deadline July 3, 10:00 a.m. Contractor Interview (if conducted) July-August 2025 Contract Award August 2025 Notice to Proceed August 2025 VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Acceptance of Submittals Proposals are due by 10:00 AM on July 3rd, 2025 to the following. Postmarks will not be accepted. Kathryne Cho, P.E. Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Department of Public Works 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 kcho@sealbeachca.gov (562) 431-2527 ext. 1321 Please submit three (3) bound hard copies, and one (1) electronic copy of the Contractor’s Proposal. Proposals received after the date and time listed above will not be accepted or considered for this Project. There is no expressed or implied obligation for City to reimburse firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. Materials submitted by respondents are subject to public inspection under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sec. 6250 et seq.). Any language purporting to render the entire proposal confidential or propriety will be ineffective and will be disregarded. 14 The City reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted, and to use any idea in a proposal regardless of whether the proposal was selected. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in the RFP, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City and the selected Contractor. All property rights, including publication rights of all reports produced by the selected Contractor in connection with services performed under this Agreement shall be vested in the City. B. Proposal Requirements Proposals shall be limited to 30 pages, excluding proposal cover, cover letter, table of contents, and dividers. The following information shall be provided, at a minimum: Cover Letter Table of Contents Company Qualifications Local Staffing List Understanding/Approach References Sample Letter Proposal Cost Proposal Exceptions Business Entity DIR Registration Number/Contractor’s License Contract Signatories Cover Letter: Cover letter shall not exceed two pages. It shall provide an executive summary of the proposal and designate the firm’s authorized representative regarding this RFP. Table of Contents: The table of contents shall list the following sections with page numbers and information in each section shall be provided. Company Qualifications: Provide a summary of the Contractor’s qualifications, including background and experience. Local Staffing List: Provide an organizational chart showing the names, positions, responsibilities, and availability of the individual(s) that would be assigned to this Agreement, including sub-Contractors. Identify the individual(s) authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of the Contractor’s firm and the Contractor’s project manager. Understanding/Approach: Describe the Contractor’s understanding of the Work requested in this RFP, any key issues that may need special attention. Describe how the Contractor will approach the scope of services and each task needed to complete the project. Any task assumptions and/or exclusions shall be clearly identified. References: Contractor should provide a minimum of five (5) references from public agencies the Contractor has performed work for within the last five (5) years. Information shall include, at a minimum: · Agency name · Scope of work and/or services provided, prime/sub-Contractor. · Project outcome · Construction value · Dates 15 · Client project manager name, valid telephone number, and email Sample Letter Proposal: Contractor will be required to submit a sample letter proposal providing a template of how the Contractor intends to respond to each Work request. Cost Proposal: Contractors will be required to submit a “Fee & Cost Proposal for On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services” as shown in Exhibit A. Additional labor/material rates may be provided in addition to Exhibit A. All rates shall remain for the term of the contract as permitted by law, unless specifically detailed as a supplement to Exhibit A. The Method of Payment of the Contract will be Time and Material. Exceptions: The Contractor shall review this RFP and attached sample contract. Exceptions to any portion of the RFP and/or City’s standard agreement will need to be clearly identified. Identification of exceptions does not constitute City concurrence and acceptance. Exceptions may be negotiated with the top-ranked firm. Business Entity: Clearly indicate the firm’s business entity type (i.e., a California corporation). DIR Registration/Contractor’s License: Clearly indicate the Contractor’s Department of Industrial Relations registration number for the prime/sub-Contractor, and provide the Contractor and sub-Contractor’s license information. Contract Signatories: Provide the two binding signatories for the firm, pursuant to California Corporation Code Section 313. VII. FEE AND COST PROPOSAL In preparing the fee and cost proposal for this project, the Contractor shall take into consideration the following: 1. Compensation for services, and any optional tasks, provided will be on a time-and-materials, not-to-exceed amount. 2. Fee proposal and billing rates shall remain effective for the term of the Agreement, which is anticipated to be three (3) years, subject to change. Any anticipated billing/rate adjustments shall be clearly identified in the Proposal. 3. The contractor’s standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal along with the mark-up rate for any non-labor expenses and sub- consultants. The City will negotiate the final fee with the top-ranked Contractor, if necessary. 16 VIII. INTERVIEW Top ranked Contractor team(s) may be interviewed by the selection committee. Proposed key personnel from the Contractor’s team may be requested to present the teams’ and their qualifications at an interview. IX. SELECTION PROCESS Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the response to all provisions of this RFP. Since this solicitation is an RFP as opposed to a Bid, pricing alone will not constitute the entire selection criteria. The City may use some or all of the following criterion in its evaluation and comparison of proposals submitted. The criteria listed are not necessarily an all-inclusive list. The order in which they appear is not intended to indicate their relative importance. The City reserves the right to modify the evaluation criterion and percentage of score as deemed appropriate prior to the commencement of evaluation. The City reserves the right to determine whether or not a proposal meets the specifications and requirements of this RFP and reject any proposal that, in the City’s sole opinion, fails to meet the detail or intent of the requirements. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Completeness of Response (Pass/Fail) Responses to this RFP must be complete. Responses that do not include the proposal content requirements identified within this RFP and subsequent addenda and do not address each of the requested items will be considered incomplete, may be rated a Fail in the Evaluation Criteria, and may receive no further consideration. 2. Qualifications & Experience (30 points) a. Local Presence - A statement addressing firm’s ability to respond in emergencies and effectively conduct the Work for the City based on the Firm’s location. b. Relevant experience, specific qualifications, and technical expertise of the Contractor and sub-Contractors to perform the work. c. Experience working in a coastal community and urban environment. d. Contractor’s experience working in the public sector and knowledge of public sector procurement processes, in particular City of Seal Beach standards, processes, and policies. e. Quality of references from at least five (5) agencies the Contractor currently or have previously consulted for in the past five (5) years. 3. Organization & Approach (30 points) a. Contractor’s understanding of range of possible emergency and unexpected Work. b. Contractor’s ability to deploy the appropriate resources to promptly meet requested emergency and/or non-emergency Work. c. Contractor’s availability to complete both small and large scale projects without the compromise of quality, cost, and/or time. d. Contractor’s ability to self-perform the requested Work, or form a quality sub-contracting team. 17 e. Contractor’s understanding of the nature of public sector work and its decision-making process. 4. Fee (40 points) a. Cost proposal b. Quality of sample letter proposal The City reserves the right to determine whether or not a proposal meets the specifications and requirements of this RFP and reject any proposal that, in the City’s sole opinion, fails to meet the detail or intent of the requirements. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. The City reserves the right to put non-emergency and pre-planned projects out for formal bidding. All proposals received as specified will be evaluated by City staff in accordance with the abovementioned. During the evaluation period, the City may do any or all of the following: generate a “short list” and conduct interviews with the top candidates; conduct on-site visits and/or tours of the candidates’ places of business. Contractors should be aware that award may be made without Contractor visits, interviews, or further discussion or negotiations. X. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS a. Normal working hours will generally be between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM on business days, Monday through Friday. During emergencies, work may be required at other than normal hours. The Contractor must receive the approval of the City prior to commencing Work during hours outside those stated above. b. Contractor shall maintain an adequate crew of at least two experienced employees to perform the services required. c. Contractor will be required to supply a list of equipment owned and available for Work. d. Contractor will be required to supply a list of references for similar work performed. e. Contractor will be required to supply a list of sub-contractors, if applicable. f. Contractor shall provide City with required proof of liability insurance, worker's compensation insurance, vehicle insurance, and City business license as noted in the contract. g. Contractor shall be responsible for Contractor’s compliance in all respects with the prevailing wage rates to all the laborers involved, and with California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq., including the keeping of all records required by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776 and the implementing administrative regulations. The City shall be a third party beneficiary of the forgoing covenant with rights to enforce the same as against the Contractor. h. Hourly rates and unit prices quoted shall include all safety equipment required. Traffic control may be 18 required on some sites, and shall be included in quoted prices. i. Hourly rates for emergency work shall be for actual time spent on the job site. No travel time will be paid. j. At any time prior to proposal due date, Contractor may inspect City property for further information, if desired. City representatives will be available if desired to answer questions. k. Contractor shall protect any and all public and private property adjacent to work areas. Any damage resulting directly or indirectly from Contractor’s actions shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. l. Contactor shall adhere to all Cal-OSHA rules and regulations for any and all Work performed under this Contract. m. Contractor must be able to provide a list of employee’s names, dates worked and hours worked on each date if requested by the City. PERSONNEL The Contractor shall use and furnish all labor necessary for the satisfactory performance for the Work set forth in this Agreement. a. Contractor's Laborers The Contractor shall require each of his/her employees to adhere to basic standards of working attire. These are to include uniforms with the Contractor's company name or insignia clearly visible, proper shoes and other gear required by State Safety Regulations, and proper wearing of clothing, which includes that shirts shall be worn at all times. b. Typical Tasks Contractor shall supply laborers with the necessary skills to perform duties in connection with pavement marking maintenance. c. Licenses Contractor shall possess a valid Contractor’s “A” License issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs – Contractors State License Board by the time of proposal submittal and shall remain valid for the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall have a valid City of Seal Beach business license for the term of the Agreement, if selected. Laborers will be required to possess a valid and current California Driver License, including all insurances as required by the City. d. Knowledge and Abilities The Contractor’s representative shall have a general knowledge of the pavement industry, including suitable experience in the field to perform the required work in a safe and thoughtful manner 19 EQUIPMENT The contractor shall use and furnish all equipment necessary for the satisfactory performance of the Work set forth in this Agreement. a. Vehicles Contractor shall display the name of their firm on any/all vehicles used or otherwise by the Contractor's employees. b. Maintenance All equipment used by the Contractor shall be maintained in a good operable mechanical condition. All equipment shall be properly adjusted, from an operational safety standpoint. c. Storage of Equipment The Contractor is required to supply storage for equipment that is used in the City. Equipment shall not be stored in the public right-of-way or on any City property without written authorization from the City. SUPERVISION The Contractor shall provide such adequate supervision as to furnish ongoing supervision of workmanship and adherence to schedules by the laborers performing the Work. The foreman, or contractor representative, shall check with the City weekly as to (1) schedule of Work; (2) complaints; and (3) adequacy of performance. The Contractor shall submit such reports as the City may require ensuring compliance with scheduled Work. The foreman shall be onsite while work is in progress. Foremen shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in the pavement industry. TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND EMERGENCY SERVICE CONTACT INFORMATION The Contractor shall provide the City at all times throughout the duration of this contract emergency telephone numbers of at least two (2) qualified persons who can be called for emergency conditions at any time that Contractor’s representatives are not immediately available at the job site. An alternate emergency number shall be provided in case no answer is received at the first number. The emergency number shall be used to contact the Contractor representative who can take the necessary action required to alleviate an emergency condition. In addition, the Contractor shall employ person(s) to answer telephone and e-mail complaints, requests for service, etc. (an answering service will not be considered sufficient for this purpose) during normal City business hours. Normal City business hours are 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Unless otherwise noted as an emergency, City will coordinate with Contractor to schedule the work with a minimum seven (7)-day prior notification. Contractor is required to provide the City with a 24-hour emergency number for contact outside normal business hours. The response to an emergency call-out by the Contractor shall not be more than four (4) hours and shall be considered part of the normal contract except when delayed by problems caused by vehicle accidents or Acts of God. 20 XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Signature The Proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Contractor. B. Other Considerations: The City shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any firm considering submitting a proposal in response to this RFP. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, or any part of, or waive any informalities or irregularities. The City reserves the right to withdraw, to cancel this RFP at any time without prior notice and the City makes no representations that any contract will be awarded to any firm responding this RFP. C. Business License Required The Seal Beach Municipal Code requires all businesses operating in the City to obtain a business license and pay a business license tax. For more information, go to www.sealbeachca.gov. D. Prevailing Wage All work performed in connection with execution of this contract work shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies (including, without limitation, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including the prevailing wage provisions of sections 1770 et seq. of the California Labor Code), and (b) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction. The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, causes of action and liabilities based upon or arising from the failure of any work related to the Agreement to comply with all such applicable legal requirements, including, without limitation, any such claims, causes of action or liabilities that may be asserted against or incurred by City with respect to or in any way arising from the Project’s compliance with or failure to comply with applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state labor requirements including, without limitation, the requirements of California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. Contractor agrees that all public work (as defined in California Labor Code section (1720) performed pursuant to this Agreement (the “Public Work”), if any, shall comply with the requirements of California Labor Code sections 1770 et seq. City makes no representation or statement that the project or any portion thereof, is or is not a “public work” as defined in California Labor Code section 1720. In all bid specifications, contracts and subcontracts for any such Public Work, Contractor shall obtain the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Public Work, and shall include such rates in the bid specifications, contract or subcontract. Such bid specifications, contract or subcontract must contain the following provision: “It shall be mandatory for the Contractor to pay not less than the said prevailing rate of wages to all workers employed by the contractor in the execution of this contract. The Contractor expressly agrees to comply with the penalty provisions of California Labor Code section 1775 and the payroll record keeping requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.” 21 E. Registration with the Department of Industrial Relations In accordance with Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, no contractor or subcontractor shall be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions for bid purposes only under Labor Code Section 1771.1(a)]. The Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number shall be listed for the Contractor and each subcontractor, if any, in the bid proposal. 22 EXHIBIT A FEE & COST PROPOSAL 23 FEE & COST PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL EMERGENCY AND UNEXPECTED TASK PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR SERVICES (additional labor/equipment/material rates may be added/clarified with a separate attachment) MOBILIZATION COST /TASK ORDER MINIMUM CALL OUT (in dollars or hours, if applicable) EQUIPMENT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION E1 Pick-Up Truck HOUR $ E2 Flatbed Truck HOUR $ E3 Bed Trailer HOUR $ E4 Skidsteer HOUR $ E5 Small Excavator HOUR $ E6 Medium Excavator HOUR $ E7 Large Excavator HOUR $ E8 Backhoe HOUR $ 24 E9 Dump Truck/Super 10 HOUR $ E10 Truck and Pup HOUR $ E11 Water Truck HOUR $ E12 Sweeper HOUR $ E13 Wheel Loader HOUR $ E14 Skip Loader HOUR $ E15 Air Compressor w/Jack Hammer HOUR $ E16 Hydraulic Breaker HOUR $ E17 Asphalt Paver HOUR $ E18 Compaction Wheel HOUR $ E19 Wacker HOUR $ E20 Vibratory Compactor HOUR $ E21 Generator HOUR $ E22 Sawcutter HOUR $ E23 Pavement Grinder HOUR $ E24 Steam Roller/Sheep’s Foot Roller HOUR $ 25 LABOR NO. DESCRIPTION STANDARD OVERTIME DOUBLE TIME L1 Superintendent $ $ $ L2 Project Manager $ $ $ L3 Foreman/Operator $ $ $ L4 Driver $ $ $ L5 Flagger $ $ $ L6 Laborer $ $ $ MATERIAL NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE M1 AC /TON M2 AB /TON M3 Slurry Seal /SF M4 PCC Concrete - 3250 /TON M5 PCC Concrete - 4500 /TON 26 M6 CAB /TON M7 CMB /TON M8 REAS /TON MARK-UP FOR ITEMS NOT NOTED ABOVE NO. DESCRIPTION PERCENTAGE O1 Material 15% O2 Equipment/Rental 15% O3 Labor/Subcontractor 15% ADJUSTMENTS Provide any anticipated rate/cost adjustments as a separate attachment, if necessary. 27 EXHIBIT B SAMPLE CONTRACT <INSTRUCTIONS: THIS TEMPLATE IS FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES ONLY. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, USE APPROPRIATE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OR NON-DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TEMPLATE.> Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT for <On-Call> <SPECIFY TYPE> Services between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & <Contractor Name> <Address> <City, State, Zip Code> <Phone Number> This Maintenance Services Agreement (“the Agreement”) is made as of <INSERT DATE> (the “Effective Date”), by and between <CONTRACTOR’S COMPLETE LEGAL NAME> (“Contractor”), <TYPE OF LEGAL ENTITY AND STATE OF FORMATION (e.g., a California corporation, partnership, limited liability company, sole proprietorship, etc.)> and the City of Seal Beach (“City”), a California charter city, (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 RECITALS A. City desires certain <on-call> <SPECIFY TYPE> maintenance services. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City issued a Request for Proposals or other solicitation on <DATE> for the <INSERT RFP TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED> and as further defined and described with specificity in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. Contractor submitted a proposal dated <DATE> to perform the maintenance services defined and described in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. C. Contractor represents that it is registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR Registration #_________), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (CSLB License #________), and that Contractor is licensed in the following classifications:__________________<SPECIFY REQUIRED CLASSIFICATIONS>. Contractor further represents that it is fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement by virtue of its experience, and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. D. City desires to retain Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor desires to serve City to perform those services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Contractor’s Services. In compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those <TYPE> maintenance services (collectively “Services”) set forth in the Request for Proposals (“RFP”), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and Contractor’s accepted Proposal for <TYPE> Maintenance Services (“Proposal”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference, all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. The Services relate to the following City project:____________________________________________.> <FOR ON-CALL AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: Strictly on an on-call basis, and in compliance with all terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide those services (collectively “Services”) in the Request for Proposals or other solicitation (“RFP”) attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and Contractor’s 3 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 accepted Proposal (“Proposal”) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference), all to City’s reasonable satisfaction. The Services relate to the following City project:_________________________________. Given the on-call nature of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that there is no guarantee that City shall request any Services hereunder.> 1.2. Agreement Documents; Order of Precedence. 1.2.1. The Agreement Documents include this Agreement itself, and all of the following: (i) the RFP (Exhibit A), including all standards, appendices and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and (ii) the Proposal (Exhibit B); and (iii) Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit C); and (iv) Performance Bond (Exhibit D); and (v) Payment Bond (Exhibit E), etc. <INSERT ANY ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT>, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2.2. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and any Exhibit or incorporated documents, the order of precedence shall be as follows: (i) this Agreement; and then (ii) Exhibit C (Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements); and then (iii) Exhibit D (Performance Bond); and then (iv) Exhibit E (Payment Bond); and then (v) Exhibit A (the RFP), including all standards, appendices and exhibits attached thereto and/or referenced therein; and then (vi) Exhibit B (the Proposal), shall control. In the event that there is any conflict between this Agreement, on the one hand, and Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, etc., on the other hand, this Agreement shall control. <CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE MAY BE MADE BASED ON THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE INCLUDED IN AN RFP, BUT IN ALL CASES THE AGREEMENT AND LABOR LAW PROVISIONS SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER EXHIBITS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE> 1.3. Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. City relies upon the skill of Contractor, and Contractor’s staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Contractor and Contractor’s staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Contractor shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. The acceptance of Contractor’s work by City shall not operate as a release of Contractor from such standard of care and workmanship. 4 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 1.4. Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (i) has investigated and considered the scope and level of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the Services should be performed, and (iii) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from City’s Representative. 1.5. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.6. Additional Services. Contractor will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council <IF CONTRACT AWARDED BY CITY MANAGER, SUBSTITUTE: “by the City Manager”> as specified in Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 . Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization <FOR CITY MANAGER-APPROVED AGREEMENTS, SUBSTITUTE “prior City Manager authorization”>. 2.0 Term 2.1. Original Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on <DATE>, and shall remain in full force and effect until <DATE>, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. <IF THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES AN OPTION FOR THE CITY TO ELECT ADDITIONAL TERM(S), SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THE FIRST SENTENCE> The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a term of <SPECIFY NUMBER OF YEARS> (“Original Term”) and shall expire at midnight on <DATE>, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided by this Agreement.> 2.2. <ADD SUBSECTION 2.2 ONLY IF CITY INCLUDES THE OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM; AND IF SO, MODIFY THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL TERMS AS APPROPRIATE>Extensions. City, at its sole option, may elect to extend the Original Term of this Agreement, upon the same terms and conditions, for up to <NUMBER, e.g., one, two, etc.> additional terms of one year each (“extension”), by providing written notice to Contractor at least one month prior to the expiration of an existing term. If timely elected by City, the first 5 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 extension shall have a term extending from <DATE> through and including <DATE>, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to this Agreement. If timely elected by City, the second extension shall be from <DATE> through and including <DATE>, unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Any extension shall not be effective except upon execution of a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the City Manager and Contractor’s authorized representatives. 3.0 Contractor’s Compensation 3.1. Original Term. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A and B, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for the Services but in no event will City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $_____ (____ dollars) <TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT> for the <Original> Term. Payment for any additional work authorized by City pursuant to Subsection 1.6 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed the cumulative amount established by the City Council <City Manager> at the time of award for the Original Term. 3.2. <INCLUDE THIS PROVISION ONLY IF THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES SUBSECTION 2.2. REGARDING THE CITY’S OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM>Extensions. In the event that City elects to extend the Original Term in accordance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement, and in consideration of Contractor’s performance of the Services set forth in Section 1.0 and Exhibits A and B, City will pay Contractor in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B for Services but in no event will City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $____________ (_______ dollars) <INSERT MAXIMUM DOLLAR AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR EACH EXTENDED TERM> for each extension. Payment for any additional work authorized by City for each extension pursuant to Subsection 1.6 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed the cumulative amount established by the City Council <City Manager> at the time of award for each extension. <IF NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED, YOU MAY DELETE ALL OF SUBSECTION 3.2, OR ALTERNATIVELY, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TEXT: “3.2 [Not applicable.].”> 4.0 Method of Payment Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the Services performed 6 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 for each day in the period. City will pay Contractor within 30 days of receiving Contractor’s invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Contractor. 5.0 Termination 5.1. Termination by City. 5.1.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, upon giving Contractor written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.1.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days’ notice to Contractor if Contractor fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 5.2. Termination by Contractor. This Agreement may be terminated by Contractor based on reasonable cause, by serving written notice of termination to City, provided that Contractor has first served City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within 30 days of receipt of such notice. <ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, A LONGER NOTIFICATION PERIOD MAY BE NECESSARY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES> 5.3. Obligations Upon Termination. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Contractor shall cease all work under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of notice of termination from City under Subsection 5.1, or immediately upon City’s acknowledgment of receipt of Contractor’s notice of termination to City under Subsection 5.1. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1 of this Agreement) and all other documents, writings, and/or deliverables produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided that Contractor is not then in breach, City shall pay Contractor for any portion of the Services completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services, based on an amount agreed to by City and Contractor. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Contractor be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and Contractor shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Contractor for the full performance of the Services up to date of 7 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 termination. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City’s representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. <INSERT FULL NAME> is the Contractor's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. <INSERT FULL NAME> shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Contractor may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Contractor: <Contractor> <Address> <City, State, Zip Code> Attn: <Contractor Representative> 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Permits and Licenses For the duration of this Agreement, Contractor and all subcontractors performing the Services shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the California State Contractors Licensing Board (“CSLB”). Contractor and all subcontractors performing any of the Services shall possess any and all current licenses in the classifications, and certifications, listed in the RFP (Exhibit A) to perform the Services. Contractor and all of Contractor’s employees and other personnel shall also obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, registrations, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under 8 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. <AS APPROPRIATE, THIS SECTION MAY BE MODIFIED TO LIST THE SPECIFIC REGISTRATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES, ETC., NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES> 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Contractor or by Contractor’s employees or other personnel under Contractor’s supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods, and details by which Contractor’s employees and other personnel will perform the Services. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9.2. All of Contractor’s employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor and Contractor’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Contractor’s personnel. Contractor’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Contractor’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Contractor’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Contractor’s choice, except (i) as otherwise required for the performance of Services on City real property, facilities, vehicles or equipment; (ii) as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Contractor’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Contractor’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or (iii) as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Contractor from time to time for Contractor’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 9.3. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Contractor’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income 9 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 9.4. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section 9.0. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Contractor agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall assure compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), commencing at Government Code § 20000, as amended by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”), and the regulations of PERS, as amended from time to time. Without limitation to the foregoing, Contractor shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 10.2. Indemnification. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Contractor’s violation of any provisions of this Section 10.0. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Contractor’s duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.0 Ownership of Work Product 11.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all field notes and other notes, draft and final reports, drawings, specifications, data, surveys, studies, plans, maps, models, photographs, images, ideas, concepts, designs including but not limited to website designs, source code, object code, computer files, electronic data and/or electronic files, other media of any kind whatsoever and any other documents and written material of any kind created, developed, prepared or used by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement (collectively “Work Product”) shall be considered “works made for hire” for the benefit of City. Upon completion of, or in the event of, termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Contractor's consent; provided that any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product by City for any purpose other than the purpose for which the Work Product was prepared or provided under this Agreement shall be at City’s own risk. Contractor shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Work Product. 11.2. Contractor hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 11.1. 11.3. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, 11 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 agents, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (i) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (ii) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenants and obligations shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 11.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Contractor shall deliver to City all Work Product and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Contractor prepares a document on a computer, Contractor shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 12.0 Confidentiality 12.1. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees, trade secrets, and/or other information that may be protected under other applicable laws relating to privacy, confidentiality and/or privilege. Contractor covenants that all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 11.1), and/or any other data, documents, writings, discussion, or other information created, developed, prepared, received by or provided to Contractor in the performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor shall not release or disclose any such Work Product, data, documents, writings, discussion or other information to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property 12 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 located within City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary,” provided Contractor gives City timely notice of such court order or subpoena. 12.2. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the Services performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 12.3. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of City. Contractor is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors, and Contractor shall monitor and review all work and other services performed by any subcontractor to ensure that all Services performed by such subcontractor comply with the requirements and provisions of this Agreement. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment, Transfer or Delegation Contractor shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any of its rights, obligations or interest in this Agreement, or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason. Any purported assignment, transfer or delegation without City’s consent shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, payroll, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to 13 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Upon 24 hours’ notice by City, during regular business hours Contractor shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City’s rights under this Section 15.0 shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and other applicable state and federal laws. City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Contractor when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Contractor shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Contractor shall immediately report to City any hazardous condition noted by Contractor. 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Requirements. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Contractor has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, death, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). If Contractor is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so 14 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 that Contractor and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds. 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto). 17.2.3. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions) Liability Insurance: <IF APPLICABLE; DELETION OF PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY’S RISK MANAGER> Contractor shall maintain professional liability (or errors and omissions liability) insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement. If a “claims made” policy is provided, then the policy shall be endorsed to provide an extended reporting period of not less than three years. 17.2.4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law; and Employer’s Liability: with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease. 17.2.5. <INSERT OTHER COVERAGES REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC AGREEMENT AS REQUIRED BY RISK MANAGER (e.g., Cyber Liability Insurance, Crime Policy or Fidelity Bond, Pollution and Environmental Liability Insurance, Excess/Umbrella Liability; etc.)> . 17.3. Acceptability of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to City. 17.4. Additional Insureds. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, 15 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor or for which Contractor is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by City to state: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days (or ten days for nonpayment) prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City; (ii) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.6. Primary and Non-Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it. 17.7. Separation of Insureds. Each insurance policy shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by City. Contractor guarantees that, at the option of City, either: (i) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or (ii) Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, 16 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery and all rights of subrogation against City, and shall require similar express written waivers from any subcontractor. 17.10. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions (Non-Estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on City’s part to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirement does not impose additional obligations on City, nor does it waive any rights hereunder. 17.11. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Contractor does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Contractor’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor’s expense, the premium thereon. Contractor shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Contractor. 17.12. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Contractor may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Contractor shall maintain current endorsements on file with City’s Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Contractor shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Contractor shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.13. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. 17 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 17.14. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor may also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Services. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Contractor. 17.15. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of demands or claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required insurance policies. 17.16. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements/Pass-Through Clause. Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section<except as otherwise waived in writing by City’s Risk Manager>. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverages and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Section. Contractor agrees to submit all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the Services upon City’s request. 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend 18.1. Indemnities. 18.1.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 18.0), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens or losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Claims”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to persons or property, including bodily injury, death, personal injury, and property damage, in any manner arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement and/or any acts, errors, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, or suppliers, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor shall bear 18 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 legal liability) in the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement, except to the extent the Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Contractor shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Contractor shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.1.2. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.2. Subcontractor Indemnification. Contractor shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. If Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity agreements, Contractor shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, arising out of, claimed to arise out of, pertaining to, or relating to any breach of this Agreement, any acts, errors, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor’s subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor’s subcontractor shall bear the legal liability) in the performance of this Agreement, except to the extent the Claims arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.3. Workers’ Compensation Acts Not Limiting. Contractor’s indemnification obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 18.4. Indemnification Not Limited By Insurance. Procurement of insurance by Contractor is not and shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor’s liability, or as a waiver of or limitation on full performance of Contractor’s duties of defense and indemnification, under this Section 18.0 or under any other provision of this Agreement. Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the 19 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Claims or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees as defined in this Section 18.0, and Contractor’s defense and indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Contractor, City, or any of the other Indemnitees. 18.5. Survival of Terms. Contractor’s covenants and obligations under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 19.0 Bonds <MODIFICATION OR DELETION OF BOND REQUIREMENTS MUST BE REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY AND REQUIRES APPROVAL OF RISK MANAGER> 19.1. Performance Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by City in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to City concurrently with this Agreement a Performance Bond in the amount of the total, not-to-exceed compensation indicated in this Agreement. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until it has been received and approved by City. The required form of Performance Bond is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. 19.2. Payment Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by City in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to City concurrently with this Agreement a Payment Bond in the amount of the total, not-to-exceed compensation indicated in this Agreement. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until it has been received and approved by City. The required form of Payment Bond is attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference. 19.3. Bond Provisions. Should, in City's sole opinion, any bond become insufficient or any surety be found to be unsatisfactory, Contractor shall renew or replace the affected bond within 10 days of receiving notice from City. In the event the surety or Contractor intends to reduce or cancel any required bond, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to City, and Contractor shall post acceptable replacement bonds at least ten (10) days prior to expiration of the original bonds. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under this Agreement until any replacement bonds required by this Section are accepted by City. To the extent, if any, that the total compensation is increased in accordance with the Agreement, the Contractor shall, upon request of City, cause the amount of the bonds to be increased accordingly and shall promptly deliver satisfactory evidence of such increase to City. To the extent available, the bonds shall further provide that no change or alteration of the Agreement (including, without limitation, an increase in the total compensation, as referred to above), extensions of time, or modifications of the time, terms, or conditions of 20 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 payment to the Contractor, will release the surety. If the Contractor fails to furnish any required bond, City may terminate this Agreement for cause. 19.4. Surety Qualifications. Only bonds executed by an admitted surety insurer, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, shall be accepted. The surety must be a California-admitted surety with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII and satisfactory to City. If a California-admitted surety insurer issuing bonds does not meet these requirements, the insurer will be considered qualified if it is in conformance with Section 995.660 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and proof of such is provided to City. 20.0 Warranty 20.1. Warranty Period. The Services shall be warranted by Contractor against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one year. The warranty period shall start on the date the work is completed as determined by the Project Administrator. 20.2. Commencement. The warranty period for specific items covered under manufacturers’ or suppliers’ warranties shall commence on the date they are placed into service at the direction of or as approved by the City Representative in writing. 20.3. Assignment. All warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers, of any tier, for the materials furnished and work performed shall be assigned, in writing, to City, and such warranties shall be delivered to the City Representative prior to acceptance of Contractor’s performance of the Agreement. 20.4. Warranty Obligation. Contractor shall re-perform any defective work, and replace or repair any defective materials, in a manner satisfactory to the City Representative, after notice to do so from the City Representative, and within the time specified in the notice. If Contractor fails to re-perform the work or make such replacement or repairs within the time specified in the notice, City may perform the work, replacement or repairs at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall promptly pay any invoice for such work, repair or replacement. This Section shall survive expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 21.0 Non-Discrimination Equal and Employment Opportunity Contractor affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against any of its employees, applicants for employment, contractors or subcontractors because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical 21 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 condition, genetic information, military or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by law. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against City of any of City’s elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, volunteers, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, or subconsultants, on any basis prohibited by law. 22.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 23.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records To the extent that this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in the California Labor Code, Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 24.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 25.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 26.0 Government Code Claim Compliance In addition to any and all requirements of this Agreement pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, additional services, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code Section 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra 22 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 work, additional services, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against City. 27.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought by reason of, that arises out of, and/or relates to any dispute under any provision of this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both). 28.0 Non-Exclusive Agreement City reserves the right to employ or retain any other contractors in connection with <this Project> <the Services>. 29.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement. 30.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (i) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (ii) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (iii) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 31.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 31.1. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person 23 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§ 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 31.2. Contractor further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Contractor paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 31.3. Contractor warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this Section. 32.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Contractor of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Contractor for anything done, furnished or relating to Contractor’s work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City’s check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 24 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 33.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Contractor shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City’s review of Contractor’s report or plans. Should Contractor fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Contractor under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 34.0 Non-Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Contractor by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Contractor’s Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Contractor’s Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 35.0 Mutual Cooperation 35.1. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Contractor with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Contractor’s proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 35.2. Contractor’s Cooperation. Contractor agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City’s representative and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Services to be performed. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 36.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 37.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from 25 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 the losing party all of its attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 38.0 Titles and Headings The titles and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement or any part of it. 39.0 Recitals City and Contractor acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 40.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 41.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Contractor is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. [signatures on following page] 26 of 26 Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: _________________________ Jill R. Ingram, City Manager Attest: By: _________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: _________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: <INSERT COMPLETE LEGAL NAME> <INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY (e.g., a California corporation> By: __________________________ Name: __ Its: By: __________________________ Name: ___ Its: (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OR OTHER SOLICITATION (RFP NO. XXXX, “________________________” <INSERT TITLE AND DATE OR OTHER DESCRIPTION OF TYPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES> Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT B CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL (Proposal for XXXXXXXXXXX Maintenance Services, dated XXXXXXX) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT C TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Contractor acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works”, Contractor shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Contractor shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Contractor or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Contractor’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. 7. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Contractor shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Contractor and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Contractor or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 10. Contractor acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Contractor shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Contractor, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Contractor under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT D FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND (If and when required under Section 19.0 or Exhibit A of Agreement) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Bond No. __________ FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), has awarded to (Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: (Project name) WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and , (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than the total Contract Price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statute of limitations as it applies to an action on this Bond. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 EXHIBIT E PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) (If and when required under Section 19.0 or Exhibit A of Agreement) Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Bond No. __________ PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), State of California, has awarded to (“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: (Project name) WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the Work, to file a good and sufficient payment Bond with the City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond. Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: Master Template: Maintenance Services Agreement Approved 12/26/23 2903125 “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. EXHIBIT B Contractor’s Proposal EXHIBIT C TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute “public works” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”). Further, Contractor acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are “public works”, Contractor shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Contractor shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Contractor or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Contractor’s Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. 7. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Contractor shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Contractor and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Contractor or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Contractor shall immediately notify City. 10. Contractor acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Contractor shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.” 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor’s compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Contractor shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Contractor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Contractor, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Contractor under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:October 27, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the On-Call Professional Services Agreement with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC for Pavement Marking Maintenance Services ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7709: 1. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an On-Call Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC, for the original term of three (3) years in the not-to-exceed amount of $150,000, to provide pavement marking maintenance services; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend the Agreement for up to two (2) additional one-year terms for a not-to-exceed amount of $50,000 per additional term; and, 3. Rejecting all other proposals. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City allocates funding to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) STO5 for the Annual Signing and Striping Program. This program provides routine pavement marking maintenance, which includes but is not limited to traffic lanes, curb painting, crosswalks, street delineations, and bike lanes. The current program enables the City to consolidate pavement marking needs into one (1) larger annual CIP project; however, there are regular occurrences where a higher maintenance frequency is desired to ensure the best maintenance and visibility of various sites, such as higher-traffic streets and arterials. This ensures that both the visual clarity and increased aesthetic of said sites are maintained on a routine and as-needed basis. In-house staff have the ability to address smaller scopes; however, contract services are required for more extensive and larger scale work. Depending on the scope and/or magnitude of work, the current workflow process to retain contract Page 2 2 1 7 1 services can take several months from the time of bid solicitation to purchase order issuance, which is not feasible for routine or as-needed situations. On August 14, 2025, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from various contractors to provide On-Call Pavement Marking Maintenance Services. After the closure of the submittal period on September 4, 2025, the City received three (3) proposals. The evaluation panel comprised of Public Works staff who rated the proposals based on their overall qualifications, relevant firm experience, availability, familiarity with the City’s policies, understanding and approach, fee and cost proposal, amongst other factors. Based on the aforementioned factors, Superior Pavement Markings, LLC (Superior) was deemed most qualified contractor to execute the scope. Staff further reviewed Superior’s proposal package and found it to be consistent with industry standards. The scope and fee for each task will be agreed upon through a letter proposal based on the established fee schedule. Due to the on-call nature of this Agreement, work is not guaranteed, nor does awarding this contract obligate funds to Superior. This contract term is three (3) years, and the City will have the option to extend this contract for up to two (2) additional one-year terms. The contractor’s agreement is in a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000, for the original three-year term, with each one-year term extension in the amount of $50,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 of the state CEQA Guidelines. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and approved the resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Due to the on-call nature of this agreement, work is not guaranteed nor funds obligated to Superior Pavement Markings, LLC. However, sufficient funding has been budgeted in the FY 2025-2026 Annual Signing and Striping Program, CIP STO5. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. Page 3 2 1 7 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7709: 1. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an On-Call Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC, for the original term of three (3) years in the not-to-exceed amount of $150,000, to provide pavement marking maintenance services; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend the Agreement for up to two (2) additional one-year terms for a not-to-exceed amount of $50,000 per additional term; and, 3. Rejecting all other proposals. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Sean Low, Deputy Director of Public Works – Maintenance/Utilities ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7709 B. Agreement with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC RESOLUTION 7709 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS, LLC, FOR ON-CALL PAVEMENT MARKING MAINTENANCE SERVICES WHEREAS, continued investment in pavement marking maintenance services provides sustained visual clarity for pedestrians and drivers alike as well as maintaining City pavement aesthetics; and, WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) desires to retain a qualified contractor to provide on-call pavement marking maintenance services in both routine and as-needed situations; and, WHEREAS, on August 14, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals for On- Call Pavement Marking Maintenance Services; and, WHEREAS, on September 4, 2025, the City received three (3) proposals in response to the Request for Proposal; and, WHEREAS, the City performed a detailed review and evaluation of the proposals and deemed Superior Pavement Markings LLC, as the most qualified contractor to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby awards a three (3) year Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) to Superior Pavement Markings, LLC, for On-Call Pavement Marking Maintenance Services in a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 for the three- year term. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to extend the Agreement with Superior Pavement Markings, LLC, for up to two (2) additional one-year terms, at his discretion, in a not-to- exceed amount of $50,000 per one-year term extension. Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of City. Section 4. The City Council hereby rejects all other proposals. 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7709 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk