LBReport.com

News / Detailed Coverage

City Staff Releases, Council Majority Will Eventually Decide On, This Re-Zoning Of Key Part Of SE LB ("SEASP"), Proposes To More Than Double Current Housing, More Than Double Current Population And Allow Up To Seven Story Bldg. Heights Along Parts Of PCH Near 2nd St

Draft EIR Offers Options Of "Reduced Intensity Alternative" Or "Reduced Building Height Alternative" But Says Traffic Impacts At Multiple Intersections + Nearby Freeway + Cumulative Traffic Impacts "Significant And Unavoidable"


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(July 22, 2016) -- City Hall staff has released, and after public hearings/testimony a City Council majority will decide whether to adopt or modify staff's proposed changes in SE LB zoning (SEASP) that would, among many things, increase allowed building heights to five stories -- and in some cases up to seven stories -- along portions of PCH in commercial areas near 2nd St.

Many of the uses and standards aren't significantly changed...but some big ones are. To view the proposed SEASP zoning changes in full, click here.

The Council will also vote on whether to certify (approve) a draft Environmental Impact that indicates the proposed rezoning at full buildout would more than double the area's existing dwelling units, more than double the SE LB area's population and create traffic impacts that at some street intersections, freeway segments and cumulatively would be "significant and unavoidable."

[Scroll down for further.]



Source: SEASP Specific Plan (hearing version, released July 2016)


Source: SEASP Specific Plan (hearing version, released July 2016)


Source: SEASP Draft EIR, p. 1-6

The draft EIR also discusses legally required alternatives, which include a "Reduced Intensity Alternative" and a "Reduced Building Height Alternative."

The draft EIR describes its Reduced Intensity Alternative, as follows: "In order to make a significant reduction to traffic impacts within the Project area, the proposed Project would need to be reduced below existing conditions. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce residential development intensity by 30 percent and nonresidential development intensity by 10 percent. This alternative would reduce the number of hotel units to 375 rooms."

The Reduced Height Alternative "proposes a maximum of five stories in the MU-CC land uses (and MU-Marina), except under specific conditions, as outlined in Table 5-4 of the Specific Plan. Additional height may be considered for hotel or residential uses up to seven stores in the MUCC, if it is shown that significant community amenities are provided. This alternative would eliminate this exception and require a maximum building height of five stories in this area. This alternative assumes the same buildout calculations as the proposed Project."

Advertisement

Advertisement

The draft EIR draws these conclusions about its alternatives:

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would eliminate one significant and unavoidable traffic impact. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing would remain the same as the proposed Project since it would involve the same mix of land uses and development area. This alternative would not increase impacts for any environmental topical area. [Draft EIR, Section 7.6.18, pp. 7-28]

...The Reduced Building Height Alternative would slightly reduce impacts related to aesthetics. Impacts relating to all other environmental topics would be the same as or similar to the proposed Project. This alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project...Implementation of the Reduced Building Height Alternative would meet most of the Project objectives. However, this alternative may provide less incentive to develop residential or hotel uses providing a less flexible land use plan (Objective 2) compared to the proposed Project. [Draft EIR, Section 7.7.18, pp. 7-31]

To view the full draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), click here.

SEASP's changes would provide certainty to commercial landowners and development interests, who currently have to seek uncertain ad hoc Council approval of variances and waivers if they propose to intensify uses within the current SEADIP zoning enacted in the 1970's to protect low-rise, less intense SE LB development as a balance to density allowed downtown.

SEASP includes multiple provisions which can be viewed in full here.

As one example, the areas on the map (above) in "red," designed "Mixed Use/Community Core," would include the following allowable building heights:


[SEASP text] Note: Heights are measured as defined in Section 21.15.1330 - Height of Building in the Zoning Code.

1. The northeast corner of PCH and 2nd Street shall be limited to 1-story.

2. Additional height may be considered up to a maximum of 7 stories for the following:

Hotel or residential uses, if it is demonstrated that significant community amenities are provided, above and beyond those that are required under the maximum height of 5 stories. Amenities can include plaza spaces, enhanced landscaping, public artwork, public parking (see Section 5.7a, Mixed Use Community Core Height and FAR Incentives)

Seven-story buildings are intended to be an exception to the building massing for all structures within project. The majority of the buildings within the Mixed-Use Community Core designation are intended to be constructed at or near the maximum base height. Building footprint of all buildings using 7 stories cannot exceed 20% of the total acres in the MU-CC.

Advertisement

Advertisement

SEASP's narrative text for the "red" areas on the map above states:

a. Mixed Use Community Core Height and FAR Incentives Projects in Mixed-Use Community Core areas have the potential to exceed 5 stories in height (up to 7 stories) additional amenities or improvements are provided . Following is a list of items that could be provided to be considered for additional height (up to 7 stories) or FAR in the MU-CC. A minimum of three of the following incentives must be provided to be considered for maximum height allowances.

  • Addition of common open space (plaza or boardwalk area with public amenity -- public art, water feature, etc.) above what is required for a project
  • Additional public parking (above what is required for project) for water or wetlands uses
  • Purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits above what is required for wetland mitigation
  • Purchase of acres of wetlands to be conveyed to the LCWA for long term operation, preservation, and maintenance above what is required for wetlands mitigation
  • Installation and maintenance of enhanced landscaping in parkways or medians along primary corridors such as PCH, 2nd and Studebaker Road beyond what is required per the setback requirements above and Landscape requirements in Section 5.5 d.
  • Installation of new renewable energy or solar facilities on the project.
  • Provision of moderate income and workforce housing units.
  • Installation of public art.
  • Hospitality and coastal recreation uses

b. Block Structure

An important feature of a walkable SEASP is the established block size. Blocks along PCH and at the intersection of 2nd Street are notably long, likely because the commercial projects on either side were constructed during a time when the automobile was the primary mode of travel. The wide roadway lanes on PCH and surface parking lots along the corridor are also an indication of automobile primacy. Since the SEASP Vision calls for a more walkable community core and activity center, smaller block sizes are encouraged to make the area more walkable and pedestrian friendly.

  • New developments shall demonstrate how they support the SEASP Vision of providing a pedestrian oriented environment that is inviting and interesting along public street frontages and internal roadways and pathways.
  • New projects in the Mixed-Use Community Core should create mid-block crossings, new internal streets, paseos or pedestrian connections, wherever possible to help break up large block configurations.
  • Providing active uses along the waterway promenade, internal streets, and paseos within the Mixed-Use Community Core is highly encouraged.
  • New internal connections and corridors shall be created when larger sites are developed and divided into smaller block configurations...

Advertisement

Advertisement

As for traffic impacts, the draft EIR indicates significant and unavoidable impacts at multiple street intersections, plus freeway segments and cumulative traffic impacts.

  • Exec. Summary at this link

  • Cumulative Traffic Impacts are at Section 5.16.4, pp. 5-16-49 through 5.16-63 at this link.

  • Details on "Level of Significance After Mitigation" are in section 5.16.8 at this link.

Regarding freeway impacts:

Impact 5.16.2 Many of the freeway segments will operate at an unacceptable level, and the project adds traffic to these facilities. Therefore, there are project-level impacts and cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the project site. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway main-line widening or freeway ramp widening would be required. However, this type of infrastructure is extremely costly and is typically infeasible for one development project to undertake. Additionally, the facility is not controlled by the City, which could not guarantee implementation of the mitigation measures. Therefore, the identified impacts to the freeway system are considered significant and unavoidable.

Regarding PCH/2nd St. (in the heart of the SEASP area) and PCH/7th/Bellflower Blvd. (some distance away "Iron Triangle")

Impact 5.16-3

Mitigation measures were considered and rejected to improve the CMP intersections of PCH at 7th Street and at 2nd Street to an acceptable LOS (see Section 8 of the TIA in Appendix J of this DEIR). Although these improvements would mitigate the impact to an acceptable LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours, development exists on all four quadrants of the intersections, and sufficient right-of-way does not exist. Since these intersections exceed the minimum standard of LOS E and no feasible mitigation is available, the Los Angeles CMP requires a deficiency plan. This plan includes improvement measures to implement at the intersection or TDM techniques that would decrease reliance on single-occupant vehicles. TDM measures are required, as detailed in PDF-1 through 3, above

By way of context, in January 2012 the City Council approved a "Downtown Plan" that invites higher density with high rises downtown (an action backed by recently-exited Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal and then-Councilman Robert Garcia.) City staff is also currently proposing a major re-write of Long Beach's foundational Land Use element to the citywide General Plan, a process that could ultimately lead to rezonings in multiple neighborhoods inviting more intense development and density.

The proposed SE LB SEASP rezoning stems from the Council's Dec. 2011 rejection of a proposed mixed use development at 2nd/PCH (Seaport Marina hotel site) that would have included buildings exceeding the current 35 foot Coastal Zone maximum (and proposed one 12 story/150 ft. building.) Only three then-Councilmembers, including now-Mayor Robert Garcia, voted to approve the project.

After a lengthy and polarizing entitlement/public hearing process on the project came to nothing, the Council voted without dissent to update the area's SEADIP rezoning, which has required developers to apply for ad hoc zoning variances and waivers with no assurance that a Council majority would approve them. In contrast, SEASP would create a foundation of allowable higher intensities, giving developers and property owners greater certainty that would invite more intense development.

Alternatives In Draft EIR

The draft EIR also (by law) includes alternatives listed and compared in the chart below.


Below are salient portions of the Reduced Density Alternative and Reduced Building Height Alternative.

[SEASP draft EIR text]

7.6 Reduced Intensity Alternative

The Reduced Intensity Alternative was analyzed to reduce environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic. In order to make a significant reduction to traffic impacts within the Project area, the proposed Project would need to be reduced below existing conditions. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce residential development intensity by 30 percent and nonresidential development intensity by 10 percent. This alternative would reduce the number of hotel units to 375 rooms

...7.6.4 Biological Impacts

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, since the development area would be the same and development would be directed away from the wetland areas and toward urbanized areas of the plan. The reduction in development intensity would reduce the amount of fees that could be placed within the proposed wetland monitoring fund that would be established for the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the wetlands. However, the reduction in building intensity would result in less population in the area, which could decrease indirect impacts, such as conflicts between the urban and wetland interface. Overall, biological resources impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project.

...7.6.13 Population and Housing

Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in 411 fewer jobs and 4,540 fewer residents. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City's growth projections identified in SCAG's RTP/SCS. However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would provide fewer housing units and mixed-use opportunities near a regional employment and activity center in high quality transit areas. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and similar to the proposed Project.

...7.6.16 Transportation and Traffic

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the number of vehicle trips. Vehicle trip generation would be reduced by approximately 16 percent during the day, 18 percent during the AM peak hour, and 6 percent during the PM peak hour, as compared to the proposed Project. [footnote: Trip generation was derived using EPA's mixed use trip generation methodology (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study in Appendix J of this DEIR] This alternative could reduce the Project's impact at the intersection of Westminster Boulevard at Seal Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach to less than significant. This would eliminate one significant unavoidable adverse impact. However, all other identified impacts would likely remain under this alternative.

7.6.18 Conclusion

Ability to Reduce Impacts

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would eliminate one significant and unavoidable traffic impact. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing would remain the same as the proposed Project since it would involve the same mix of land uses and development area. This alternative would not increase impacts for any environmental topical area.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives >p>Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, most of the proposed Project's objectives would be achieved but to a lesser extent as compared to the proposed Project. For example, the reduction in development capacity under this alternative would not be consistent with the ideas and plans presented in the proposed Project, which were generated through close coordination with existing residents, businesses, property owners, and development communities to create a sustainable, feasible, and effective plan that equally considers social (community amenities), environmental, and economic benefits (Objective 1). This alternative would not provide a greater mix of uses to the same extent as the proposed Project (Objective 2). This alternative could meet Objectives 3 through 6 relating to guideline future development, expanding multimodal transportation, providing increased connectivity to open space, and identifying gateway and landmark locations to a lesser extent than the Project.

Reduced Building Height Alternative

The Reduced Building Height Alternative proposes a maximum of five stories in the MU-CC land uses (and MU-Marina), except under specific conditions, as outlined in Table 5-4 of the Specific Plan. Additional height may be considered for hotel or residential uses up to seven stores in the MUCC, if it is shown that significant community amenities are provided. This alternative would eliminate this exception and require a maximum building height of five stories in this area. This alternative assumes the same buildout calculations as the proposed Project.

7.6.13 Population and Housing

Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in 411 fewer jobs and 4,540 fewer residents. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City's growth projections identified in SCAG's RTP/SCS. However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would provide fewer housing units and mixed-use opportunities near a regional employment and activity center in high quality transit areas. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and similar to the proposed Project

7.6.16 Transportation and Traffic

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the number of vehicle trips. Vehicle trip generation would be reduced by approximately 16 percent during the day, 18 percent during the AM peak hour, and 6 percent during the PM peak hour, as compared to the proposed Project. [footnote: Trip generation was derived using EPA's mixed use trip generation methodology (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study in Appendix J of this DEIR] This alternative could reduce the Project's impact at the intersection of Westminster Boulevard at Seal Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach to less than significant. This would eliminate one significant unavoidable adverse impact. However, all other identified impacts would likely remain under this alternative.

7.6.18 Conclusion

Ability to Reduce Impacts

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would eliminate one significant and unavoidable traffic impact. Impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing would remain the same as the proposed Project since it would involve the same mix of land uses and development area. This alternative would not increase impacts for any environmental topical area.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives

Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, most of the proposed Project's objectives would be achieved but to a lesser extent as compared to the proposed Project. For example, the reduction in development capacity under this alternative would not be consistent with the ideas and plans presented in the proposed Project, which were generated through close coordination with existing residents, businesses, property owners, and development communities to create a sustainable, feasible, and effective plan that equally considers social (community amenities), environmental, and economic benefits (Objective 1). This alternative would not provide a greater mix of uses to the same extent as the proposed Project (Objective 2). This alternative could meet Objectives 3 through 6 relating to guideline future development, expanding multimodal transportation, providing increased connectivity to open space, and identifying gateway and landmark locations to a lesser extent than the Project.

Prior to city staff's release of its proposed SEASP zoning re-write, city-hired consultants held public meetings at which they described and sought public input on what they planned to do. At the meetings, multiple residents objected to impacts from increased density while development interests supported increased development opportunities.

The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, which voiced concerns early in the process, said it is reviewing the draft EIR to see if the draft addressed its concerns. "As always our concerns are issues that would harm or degrade Los Cerritos Wetlands," said LCWLT Exec. Dir. Elizabeth Lambe. "Those issues include, but are not limited to, ensuring that there are adequate buffers between development and the wetlands [and] that the proposed increases in density and height will not negatively impact our fragile local wetlands (for example in the areas of increased noise and light.) We want to ensure the protection of wildlife corridors, and are looking for any opportunities that might come out of this process to improve or add to habitat."

Ms. Lambe added that LCWLT also worries "that the increased traffic brought about by the proposed increase in height and density for the area will put pressure to put roads through Los Cerritos Wetlands. Roads through Los Cerritos Wetlands are unacceptable to us. Given that the vast majority of Southern California's wetlands are gone forever we can not afford to lose any more of this important habitat. Los Cerritos Wetlands is a great community and environmental resource that must be protected and preserved. Now that the draft EIR has been released, we look forward to getting a clear picture of what the updated SEASP will look like and what the impacts will be to Los Cerritos Wetlands."

What a Council majority ultimately votes to approve will be sent to the CA Coastal Commission for a Local Coastal Program Amendment, visible at this link. The Coastal Commission currently includes Long Beach Councilmember Roberto Uranga.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com







Adoptable pet of the week:





Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2016 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here