Huntington Park City Council
October 17, 2023

Introduction
Draft Environmental Assessment 1-7

1.4 Environmental Assessment Intended Use and
Process
Environmental Assessment Intended Use
This EA is intended to be used by the City, as Lead Agency, in evaluating the proposed project and related amendments. Additionally, as an EA that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR, this document is intended to be used by the City when acting on subsequent applications for development on the housing sites consistent with the Housing Element, to ensure compliance with the Huntington Park General Plan (HPGP), Huntington Park Municipal Code (HPMC), and mitigation framework; see Subsequent Environmental Review, below.

Environmental Assessment Process
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed actions, preparation of an “environmental assessment” that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR is required, if any of the proposed actions would have a significant effect on the environment (GOV § 65759(a)). This document constitutes the required “environmental assessment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into this document and become part of the HPGP. The City will consider all information included in the EA when acting on the HPHE. Once adopted by the City, the EA will be incorporated into the HPGP.

Per the writ of mandate, a Notice of Availability of the EA will not be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and distributed to public agencies as part of GOV § 65352 and Public Utilities Code § 21676 noticing requirements.

Subsequent Environmental Review
As allowed by State CEQA Guidelines § 15168, Program EIR, § 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, and § 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan, the City will review future development under the proposed project considering this EA. State CEQA Guidelines § 15168, allows a program EIR to serve as the basis for environmental review of subsequent projects.

State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15182 and 15183 provide additional exemptions for projects proposed in accordance with an adopted specific plan, or consistent with an adopted community plan, general plan, or zoning.

If any future Housing Element and General Plan Update projects requiring discretionary approval are not eligible for “by right” approval and have potentially significant adverse environmental effects that were not examined in this EA, an Initial Study would be prepared for that project, leading to the preparation of either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, focused EIR, or supplement to this EA. When additional environmental documentation for a future project is necessary, this EA may be incorporated by reference to address regional context, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and other factors applicable to the program overall. Section 2.6 provides additional information concerning future project approvals and procedures.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
1-8
This page intentionally left blank
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-2
2 Project Description
The proposed project analyzed in this EA is the proposed City of Huntington Park Housing Element and General Plan Update (“proposed project”), which includes a focused update of the Housing and Safety Elements of the General Plan. To fulfill the requirements of the Housing Element, the proposed project would also involve minor changes to the City’s Land Use Element, land use designations, and zoning code. The City of Huntington Park is the lead agency for the proposed project. The City’s Planning Department prepared this EA with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

This section describes the proposed project, including the major characteristics, objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of the General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted in 2009 and is in effect through 2014. The Housing Element identifies Huntington Park’s housing conditions and needs, and establishes the goals, objectives, and policies that comprise the City’s housing strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for low-income households and for special-needs populations (e.g., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities).

The proposed Housing Element update would bring the element into compliance with State legislation passed since adoption of the 2008-2014 Housing Element and with the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In December 2021, the SCAG Executive Board adopted the 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, which includes a fair share allocation for meeting regional housing needs for each community in the SCAG region.

The proposed Housing Element update includes the following components, as required by State law:
 Community Profile Assessment: An analysis of the existing and projected housing needs of the community. It provides a profile of socio-demographic information, such as population characteristics, household information, housing stock, tenure, and housing affordability. The assessment also considers local special housing needs, such as seniors, farmworkers, unhoused persons, large households, and female-headed households.  Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology: An inventory listing adequate sites that are suitably zoned and available within the planning period to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels.
 Housing Resources: An identification of financial, land, and administrative resources to support the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing.  Constraints to Housing Production: An assessment of impediments to housing production across all income levels covering both governmental (e.g., zoning, fees, etc.) and nongovernmental (e.g., market, environmental, etc.).
 Housing Plan: This section provides a statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies to maintain, preserve, improve, and develop housing, as well as a schedule of implementable actions to be taken during the planning period to achieve the goals, objectives, and policies. Quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-3
conserved units by income category (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) are included to make sure that both the existing and the projected housing needs are met, consistent with the City’s share of the RHNA.

The update to the Housing Element is included in its entirety in Appendix A, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The Housing Element is also available on the homepages of the City’s website: https://www.hpca.ca.gov and the project website:
https://huntingtonparkgpupdates.com/housing-element/

2.2 Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update will ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and will comply with recent State legislation and guidelines (including Assembly Bill [AB] 162, Senate Bill [SB] 1241, SB 99, AB 747, SB 1035, and SB 379). Amendments incorporate data and maps, address vulnerability to climate change, incorporate policies and programs from the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, as well as partial or full integration of other City documents and programs. Key areas of the Huntington Park Safety Element Update include updated flooding and fire hazard maps, emergency response and preparedness, especially as they relate to the City’s projected climate change exposure, and vulnerability. The Safety Element amendments will be submitted to the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for review.

The update to the Safety Element is included in its entirety in Appendix B, Draft Safety Element Update. The Safety Element is also available on the homepages of the City’s website:
https://www.hpca.ca.gov and the project website: https://huntingtonparkgpupdates.com/safetyelement/

2.3 Land Use Element Update
The City’s Land Use Element update will be prepared in compliance with Government Code Section 65302.10, which requires the City to update its Land Use Element to identify unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities inside or near its boundaries. The Land Use Element identifies and analyzes the service needs of the fringe community of Walnut Park, within the City’s sphere of influence.

The Land Use Element will also be amended to address consistency issues with newly developed Housing Element goals, policies, and programs.

The General Plan Land Use Element will include a new Transit-Oriented Development land use overlay designation to allow a new zoning overlay district. The General Plan Land Use Map will be amended to apply the new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay designation to 36 parcels in the City.

The update to the Land Use Element is included in its entirety in Appendix C, Draft Land Use Element Update. The Land Use Element is also available on the homepages of the City’s website:
https://www.hpca.ca.gov and the project website: https://huntingtonparkgpupdates.com/land-useelement/ City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-4

2.4 Zoning Code Amendments
The City’s Zoning Code will be amended to address constraints identified in the Housing Element and inconsistencies with State law, including:
 Modifying the City’s manufactured homes regulations to align with only those regulations that also apply to single-family homes;
 Allowing employee housing according to state law;
 Establishing standards and by-right processing procedures for Low-Barrier Navigation Centers;  Allowing transitional housing according to state law;  Eliminating prohibitions on multiple dwelling units to align with state accessory dwelling unit law;
 Allowing emergency shelters according to state law;
 Addressing identified constraints in the existing Reasonable Accommodation ordinance;  Establishing a new TOD Overlay District. ; and
The City’s Zoning Map would be amended to apply the new TOD Overlay District to 36 parcels to qualify them for inclusion in the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory, as required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)(A).

2.5 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The SCAG Board of Directors adopted the final RHNA Plan for the Sixth Housing Element Cycle (October 1, 2021, to October 31, 2029) in March 2021. The plan allocates a share of the regional housing need to each jurisdiction, distributed across four income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate). The proposed project is proposed to comply with State housing law and reflect SCAG’s RHNA Plan Sixth Housing Element Cycle.

AB 1233 was signed into law on October 5, 2005, and applies to housing elements due on or after January 1, 2006. Specifically, the law states that if a jurisdiction fails to provide adequate sites in the prior planning period, within one year of the new cycle, the jurisdiction must rezone/upzone adequate sites to accommodate the shortfall. This requirement is in addition to rezoning/upzoning that may be needed to address the RHNA allocation for 2021-2029. This law affects the City of Huntington Park's Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, requiring that City to address its deficit in sites from the previous (5th Cycle) RHNA share (2014–2021). As indicated in Table 2-1, the City’s “carryover” from the 5th Cycle Housing Element is 895 dwelling units. Therefore, the City’s RHNA share, including both the share of the current (6th Cycle) RHNA and carryover from the previous (5th Cycle) RHNA is 2,500 dwelling units.

Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-5
Table 2-1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution
Income Level
Percent of Area
Median Income (AMI) 5th Cycle 6th Cycle
Total RHNA
Allocation
Very Low 0-50% 216 264 480
Low 51-80% 128 196 324
Moderate 81-120% 149 243 392
Above Moderate >120% 402 902 1304
Total -- 865 1,605 2,500
Source: SCAG 2020
Approach to Addressing RHNA
State law requires that agencies demonstrate in their housing elements that they have sufficient land zoned to accommodate their share of the regional growth (i.e., RHNA share). Agencies conduct land inventories to identify land suitable for residential development. Lands considered suitable for residential development include the following:
 Vacant residentially zoned sites.
 Vacant non-residentially zoned sites that allow residential development.  Residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density; and  Non-residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and if necessary rezoned for, residential use (via proposed program/project actions).

The availability of infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and dry utilities), both Citywide and site-specific, is also a determining factor in identifying land suitable for residential development. Environmental constraints must be reviewed, but not on a site-specific basis. The City must additionally demonstrate that each selected site has a "realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period [i.e., by 2021] to meet the [City's] housing need for a designated income level." (Government Code § 65583(a)(3).)
Table 2-2 shows a summary of the RHNA allocations over the 5th and 6th cycle, housing credits for pipeline projects and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), vacant and underutilized sites throughout Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), sites proposed to be rezoned near transit, and the surplus of housing units above RHNA allocation. The total capacity of inventory sites exceeds the City’s RHNA share by 14 percent. The City would exceed the RHNA allocation in each income distribution level and total allocation, providing a buffer beyond what is required to ensure the City’s share of the RHNA is met within the eight-year planning period.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-6
Table 2-2 RHNA and Opportunity Sites Summary
Sites/Projects
Income Distribution
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
5th Cycle RHNA Allocation 216 128 149 402 895
6th Cycle RHNA Allocation 264 196 243 902 1,605
Total RHNA Allocation 480 324 392 1304 2,500
Pipeline Projects 13 36 7 1 57
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 26 50 2 34 112
Remaining RHNA After Subtracting Credits 441 238 383 1,269 2,331 Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Opportunity Sites 125 122 110 553 910 Slauson/Long Beach Transit Station Rezone Sites 169 152 214 534 1,069 Pacific/Randolph Transit Rezone Sites 105 89 131 328 653 Florence/Salt Lake Transit Rezone Site8 6 5 7 19 37
Total Units (Credts + Vacant/Underutilized +
Rezone Sites)
444 454 462 1,477 2,837
Total Unit Surplus Above RHNA Share 94 70 173 337
Total % Buffer Above RHNA Share 12% 4% 5% 14%
Rezone Sites
The City conducted a land inventory to identify housing opportunity sites that could satisfy the criteria and factors described above. Based on the adopted General Plan Land Use Element, adopted specific plans, and existing zoning, the City determined that an adequate number of properly zoned properties were not available to accommodate future housing needs. Thirty-six parcels are proposed to be rezoned to make them eligible for inclusion in the sites inventory.

Sites Inventory Summary
Table 2-3 lists each housing opportunity site in Huntington Park, including the address, APN, acreage, current use, and assumed income level distribution to fulfill the RHNA share of each opportunity site in the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Pacific/Randolph Transit area, the Florence Salt Lake Site area, and the Slauson Long Beach Transit area. As proposed, the opportunity sites can support a total of 2,668 units, exceeding the RHNA share by 337 units.

Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-7
Table 2-3 Opportunity Sites Inventory
Income Category
Specific Plan Address APN Acreage Existing Use
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Potential
Dwelling
Units
Downtown Specific Plan Opportunity Sites
DTSP 6208 Rita Ave. 6320-022-003 0.18 Parking Lot 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6200 Rita Ave. 6320-022-004 0.18 Parking Lot 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP Rita Ave. 6320-022-900 0.31 Parking Lot 0 0 0 15 15 DTSP 6211 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-024 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6201 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-022 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6137 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-021 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6207 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-023 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6217 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-025 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-010 0.26 Parking Lot 0 0 0 12 12 DTSP 2551 Clarendon Ave. 6320-020-002 0.11 Office Building 0 0 0 5 5 DTSP 6132 Pacific Blvd. 6320-021-006 0.10 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 5 5 DTSP 6101 Pacific Blvd. 6320-020-017 0.36 Commercial Retail 0 0 17 0 17 DTSP 6208 Pacific Blvd. 6320-021-003 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6214 Pacific Blvd. 6320-021-002 0.14 Light Manufacturing 0 0 0 6 6 DTSP 2611 Clarendon Ave. 6320-021-020 0.28 Parking Lot 0 0 0 13 13 DTSP 6334 Pacific Blvd. 6320-030-027 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6360 Pacific Blvd. 6320-030-035 0.57 Commercial Retail 14 14 0 0 28 DTSP 2621 E Gage Ave. 6320-030-034 0.37 Commercial Retail 0 0 17 0 17 DTSP 6335 Rita Ave. 6320-030-906 1.55 Parking Lot 38 37 0 0 75 DTSP 6430 Pacific Blvd. 6322-004-033 0.22 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 10 10 DTSP 6409 Rita Ave. 6322-004-015 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-004-904 0.39 Parking Lot 0 0 19 0 19 DTSP 6415 Rita Ave. 6322-004-016 0.21 Parking Lot 0 0 0 10 10 City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-8
Income Category
Specific Plan Address APN Acreage Existing Use
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Potential
Dwelling
Units
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-004-901 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-004-903 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-004-900 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-004-902 0.40 Parking Lot 0 0 19 0 19 DTSP 6438 Rita Ave. 6322-005-009 0.18 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6538 Rita Ave. 6322-005-016 0.10 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 4 4 DTSP 2675 Zoe Ave. 6322-005-025 0.83 Commercial Retail 9 8 0 0 17 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-906 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-902 0.21 Parking Lot 0 0 0 10 10 DTSP 6621 Rita Ave. 6322-017-909 0.19 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-901 0.59 Parking Lot 14 14 0 0 28 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-904 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-907 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP 6713 Rita Ave. 6322-017-910 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-905 0.20 Parking Lot 0 0 0 9 9
DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-017-908 0.17 Parking Lot 0 0 0 8 8
DTSP 6611 Seville Ave. 6322-015-009 0.10 Office Building 0 0 0 2 2 DTSP 6619 Seville Ave. 6322-015-011 0.15 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 7 7 DTSP 6823 Seville Ave. 6322-016-011 0.14 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 6 6 DTSP 6725 Seville Ave. 6322-016-001 0.19 Professional Building 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6831 Seville Ave. 6322-016-012 0.08 Professional Building 0 0 0 3 3 DTSP 6803 Seville Ave. 6322-016-005 0.17 Professional Building 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 7023 Seville Ave. 6322-025-031 0.19 Office Building 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 7021 Seville Ave. 6322-025-032 0.20 Office Building 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-023-030 0.18 Parking Lot 0 0 0 8 8
Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-9
Income Category
Specific Plan Address APN Acreage Existing Use
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Potential
Dwelling
Units
DTSP 7115 Pacific Blvd. 6322-023-031 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 2661 E Florence Ave. 6322-025-047 1.06 Commercial Retail 26 25 0 0 51 DTSP 7143 Seville Ave. 6322-025-021 0.20 Professional Building 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 7120 Pacific Blvd. 6322-024-037 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 7129 Rita Ave. 6322-024-042 0.17 Parking Lot 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 7009 Rita Ave. 6322-024-022 0.17 Vacant 0 0 0 8 8
DTSP 6906 Pacific Blvd. 6322-024-002 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 7118 Pacific Blvd. 6322-024-007 0.14 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 6 6 DTSP 7100 Pacific Blvd. 6322-024-031 0.16 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 7 7 DTSP 7103 Pacific Blvd. 6322-023-023 0.18 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6921 Pacific Blvd. 6322-023-018 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 7003 Pacific Blvd. 6322-023-019 0.14 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 6 6 DTSP 7018 Rugby Ave. 6322-023-007 0.19 Vacant 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 2558 Saturn Ave. 6322-023-001 0.21 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 10 10 DTSP 7022 Rugby Ave. 6322-023-008 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6621 Pacific Blvd. 6322-018-017 0.19 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6615 Pacific Blvd. 6322-018-016 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP Rita Ave. 6322-016-017 0.07 Parking Lot 0 0 0 3 3
DTSP 6722 Rugby Ave. 6322-018-031 0.98 Parking Lot 24 24 0 0 48 DTSP 2556 Zoe Ave. 6322-018-001 0.22 Office Building 0 0 0 10 10 DTSP 6529 Pacific Blvd. 6322-003-019 0.18 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 DTSP 6501 Pacific Blvd. 6322-003-013 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6515 Pacific Blvd. 6322-003-017 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6526 Rugby Ave. 6322-003-029 0.37 Commercial Retail 0 0 18 0 18 DTSP 6353 Pacific Blvd. 6320-031-020 0.17 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 8 8 City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-10
Income Category
Specific Plan Address APN Acreage Existing Use
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Potential
Dwelling
Units
DTSP 6614 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-028 0.19 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6702 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-005 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6822 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-012 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6728 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-008 0.19 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6722 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-007 0.20 Commercial Retail 0 0 0 9 9 DTSP 6610 Pacific Blvd. 6322-017-030 0.41 Commercial Retail 0 0 20 0 20 DTSP Subtotal 20.02 125 122 110 553 910
Slauson/Long Beach Transit Rezone Sites
Slauson / Long Beach Transit 5925 S Alameda St. 6009-030-014 1.00 Auto Repair 8 7 10 25 49 Slauson / Long Beach Transit Wilmington Ave. 6009-030-016 0.50 Parking Lot 4 3 5 12 24 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 5920 Wilmington Ave. 6009-031-002 1.12 Manufacturing 9 8 11 27 55 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6100 Wilmington Ave. 6009-031-004 1.00 Manufacturing 8 7 10 25 49 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 5900 Wilmington Ave. 6009-031-006 1.24 Manufacturing 9 9 12 30 60 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6200 Wilmington Ave. 6009-032-001 4.69 Office Building 35 34 46 115 229 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6201 S Alameda St. 6009-033-002 1.45 Auto Repair 11 10 14 35 70 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6169 S Alameda St. 6009-033-007 1.36 Manufacturing 10 9 13 33 65 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6011 S Alameda St. 6009-033-008 2.50 Manufacturing 19 18 24 61 122 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 5969 S Alameda St. 6009-034-008 0.93 Parking Lot 7 6 9 23 45 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 2020 E Slauson Ave. 6321-001-008 0.77 Manufacturing 6 5 7 19 37 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 2007 Laura Ave. 6321-001-015 0.56 Vacant 5 4 5 14 28 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 6000 Alameda St. 6321-007-015 0.67 Manufacturing 5 4 6 16 31 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 2020 Laura Ave. 6321-007-027 0.51 Industrial 4 3 5 12 24 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 5977 Regent St. 6321-007-031 0.74 Manufacturing 6 5 7 18 36 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 1981 Belgrave Ave. 6321-007-034 1.30 Manufacturing 10 9 13 32 63 Slauson / Long Beach Transit 1954 Laura Ave. 6321-007-037 0.77 Commercial Retail 6 5 7 19 37 Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-11
Income Category
Specific Plan Address APN Acreage Existing Use
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Potential
Dwelling
Units
Slauson/Long Beach Transit Subtotal 22.01 169 152 214 534 1069 Pacific/Randolph Transit Rezone Sites
Pacific / Randolph Transit 2563 E Slauson Ave. 6309-016-028 0.55 Restaurant 5 4 5 14 28 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2657 E Slauson Ave. 6309-025-044 0.53 Parking Lot 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2863 E Slauson Ave. 6310-016-008 1.00 Industrial 8 7 10 25 49 Pacific / Randolph Transit Soto St. 6310-017-005 0.55 Manufacturing 5 4 5 14 28 Pacific / Randolph Transit 5720 Soto St. 6310-017-006 0.50 Storage 4 3 5 12 24 Pacific / Randolph Transit Slauson Ave. 6310-017-007 1.68 Industrial 13 12 16 41 82 Pacific / Randolph Transit Pacific Blvd. 6320-012-072 2.00 Parking Lot 15 14 20 49 98 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2330 E Slauson Ave. 6321-002-009 0.51 Service Station 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2400 E Slauson Ave. 6321-003-001 0.53 Service Station 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific / Randolph Transit 5936 Santa Fe Ave. 6321-003-143 0.52 Commercial Retail 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific / Randolph Transit 5918 Santa Fe Ave. 6321-003-144 0.53 Commercial Retail 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific / Randolph Transit 6020 Santa Fe Ave. 6321-004-069 0.58 Commercial Retail 5 4 6 14 29 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2110 Belgrave Ave. 6321-006-025 1.45 Manufacturing 11 10 14 35 70 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2075 Belgrave Ave. 6321-006-026 0.65 Vacant 5 4 6 16 31 Pacific / Randolph Transit 2111 Belgrave Ave. 6321-006-030 0.83 Manufacturing 6 6 8 20 40 Pacific / Randolph Transit 6536 Santa Fe Ave. 6321-022-027 0.53 Parking Lot 4 3 5 13 25 Pacific/Randolph Transit Subtotal 13.48 105 89 131 328 653 Florence/Salt Lake Transit Rezone Sites
Florence / Salt Lake Transit 7412 State St. 6213-007-019 0.77 Commercial Retail 6 5 7 19 37 Florence/Salt Lake Transit Subtotal 0.77 6 5 7 19 37
Total 56.28 405 368 462 1433 2668
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-12

2.6 Project Objectives
The purpose of the proposed project is to address the housing and safety needs of the City, to support City programs to increase housing affordability, and to update the General Plan to meet the requirements of current State law. The proposed project includes the following goals and objectives:
 Provide a framework for accommodating approximately 2,500 new housing units, with a reasonable buffer of at least 14 percent above RHNA for lower- and moderate-income units for a total of 2,668 new units, at all levels of affordability within access to transit, job centers, schools, services, and open spaces.
 Plan for a buffer range of approximately 338 units to ensure ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss provisions of State housing law.
 Accommodate the City’s share of the State-required RHNA for 5th and 6th Cycle Housing Element planning periods.
 Bring the Housing, Safety, and Land Use Elements into conformance with recently enacted State laws.
 Identify future housing sites with a collective capacity to meet the City’s RHNA, including the requisite buffer capacity; and
 Continue to provide excellent services, parks, schools, and environmental setting, and offer new programs that support the City’s increasing diversity and improved housing affordability. New Housing Element programs support this growth and self-mitigate potential negative impacts of growth on the physical environment in Huntington Park and the surrounding region.

2.7 Project Implementation
Goals and Policies
The proposed project identifies the following major housing-related goals, with associated policies to implement each:
 Ensure that a broad range of housing types are provided to meet the needs of both existing and future residents.
 Ensure that housing is both sound and safe for occupants.  Ensure that the existing housing stock is maintained and preserved.  Ensure the continued affordability of deed-restricted units; and  Develop policies to remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints.

The goals and policies are provided in their entirety in Section 1 of Appendix A.

Housing Element Law
Under State Housing Element law, the HEU must include programs that address six housing-related categories, as outlined below. State law requires that the implementation program address the following:

Adequate Sites Inventory [GOV Code §65583(c)(1)]
A jurisdiction must identify actions/programs that will be taken to make sites available during Project Description
Draft Environmental Assessment 2-13
the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services/facilities to accommodate the City's share of regional housing need for each income level.

Affordable Housing [GOV Code § 65583(c)(2)]
A jurisdiction must show how it intends to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.

Mitigation of Constraints [GOV Code §65583(c)(3)]
A jurisdiction must address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

Conservation [GOV Code § 65583(c)(4)]
A jurisdiction must conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock.

Equal Housing Opportunities [GOV Code § 65583(c)(5)]
A jurisdiction must promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, family status, or disability.

At-Risk Housing [GOV Code § 65583(a)(6)9]
A jurisdiction must preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments that are at risk of becoming homeless.

Many of the proposed implementation programs are limited to City housing policy and actions to support those policies that do not involve changes that would result in physical impacts. Others such as General Plan and Zoning Code map amendments have potential to increase development yields or result in other physical impacts.

The housing programs proposed to implement each goal and policy are included in their entirety in Section 1 of Appendix A.

2.8 Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions are those taken by an agency that call for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project.

Housing and Safety Element Update Conforming Amendments The following discretionary actions by the City would be required for approval of the Draft 2021- 2029 Housing and Safety Element Update:
 Adopt the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update, which amends the General Plan.
 Amend the General Plan Land Use Element for conformance.  Amend the Zoning Code for conformance with state housing law.  Amend the General Plan and Zoning maps to rezone 36 parcels citywide.

Other project activities or actions required by other agencies:
 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review the proposed project.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
2-14
CEQA Review
Subsequent discretionary actions must be examined in the light of this EA to determine whether additional environmental clearance is required. Future development consistent with the rezoning program and this EA may tier from this EA, as permitted by State CEQA Guidelines § 15152; see Section 3.3.1. This EA comprehensively consider a series of related projects with the intent to streamline subsequent review of future development projects.

Discretionary Review
Future development on sites not qualifying for “by right” approval would be subject to subsequent discretionary review and permitting, as required by the Zoning Code. Specifically, design review and subsequent discretionary review would be required for most subdivision map actions, as detailed below:
 Design Review. All buildings, grading, landscaping, and construction projects in the rezoning program (including those that that qualify as a “use by right” and whether they require any other City permit or not) would be subject to design review unless exempted by HPMC Chapter 9-2.18.
 Subdivision. All projects in the rezoning program that create a subdivision would be subject to HPMC Title 10, Subdivisions.

Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Assessment 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the EA. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The City of Huntington Park is located in south central Los Angeles County, approximately 6 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The City is located approximately 18 miles inland from the coastline of the Pacific Ocean. Huntington Park city limits are generally bounded by the City of Vernon and City of Los Angeles to the north, the City of Bell to the east, the City of South Gate to the south, and the City of Walnut Park to the west (“Plan Area”). A grid system of east-west and northsouth roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, provides vehicular access throughout the City. The major roadways include East Slauson Avenue, Randolph Street, East Gage Avenue, Sante Fe Avenue, Miles Avenue, and State Street. It is regionally accessible via Interstate 710 to the east, Interstate 105 to the south, Interstate 110 to the west and Interstates 5 and 10 to the north. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the City in a regional context and Figure 3-2 shows the location of the proposed project in relationship to surrounding cities.

Huntington Park is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planning area. SCAG functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties. The region encompasses a population exceeding 19.2 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles (SCAG 2021). The City, as of 2022, has a population of approximately 53,942 persons and 15,507 households and is expected to increase to 64,000 persons and 16,500 households by 2045 (DOF 2022, SCAG 2020).

3.2 Natural Environment
Los Angeles County is topographically diverse, with mountains, valleys, agricultural land, and distinct urban areas, all within relative proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The regional climate is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The region is subject to various natural hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires. Although air quality in the area has steadily improved in recent years, the Los Angeles region remains a nonattainment area for ozone (urban smog) and particulate matter.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
3-2
Figure 3-1 Regional Location
Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Assessment 3-3
Figure 3-2 City of Huntington Park
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
3-4

3.3 Planning Context
Land Use Designations
The City consists of a variety of land use designations including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; General Commercial; Commercial Neighborhood; Commercial Professional; Manufacturing; Downtown Specific Plan; Public Facilities; and Open Space. In addition, the City consists of various overlay zones including medium density, parking, special use, affordable housing, and historical district.

Draft Housing Opportunity Sites Setting
The Draft Housing Opportunity Sites are summarized in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of Section 2, Project Description, and detailed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing. Please see the Draft Housing Element, which is included in its entirety in Appendix A, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, for a figure of the location of the proposed opportunity sites. In particular, these sites currently exist as vacant, parking lots, commercial, office, and industrial use, and are surrounded by single family and multifamily residential development, commercial development, office, public space, educational facilities, industrial, and vacant uses. The Draft Housing Opportunity Sites include both undeveloped, underdeveloped and developed parcels.

3.4 Cumulative Impact Setting
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project, as this EA acts as a program EIR, this document will follow that requirement. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EA to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential.

Since the HSEU is a policy document, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than they would be for a specific development. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction relative to cumulative impact analysis:
“Impacts should be based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.”
Because the proposed project is essentially a set of guidelines for projects that could occur within the timeframe of the proposed project, the proposed project itself represents the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the area of the project. Therefore, Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Assessment 3-5
the analysis presented in this EA generally represents a cumulative analysis of the Plan Area over the Housing Element planning horizon of 2029.

Existing and proposed land uses in the Plan Area include residential, business office, commercial, mixed use, public facilities, recreational and resource-protected open space. The HEU would accommodate an additional estimated housing capacity of 2,668 units and 10,646 residents in the Plan Area by 2029, which would result in a total of 17,896 units and 69,893 residents by that year (see Section 4.5, Population and Housing, for more details).

In instances where other cumulative development in region including neighboring cities, the County, or specific region (e.g., hydrologic region or air basin) could contribute to impacts generated by the proposed project, those impacts, as well as the context, are discussed in the cumulative impact discussion that follows the project-specific impacts in each section.

The analysis included in each cumulative impact section analyzes whether, after implementation of mitigation that minimize environmental effects, the residual impacts of the proposed project would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would contribute considerably to existing or anticipated cumulatively significant effects. Where the proposed project would contribute, additional mitigation is recommended where feasible.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
3-6
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Environmental Assessment 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
As discussed in detail in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element and relevant mandatory General Plan elements into compliance with State law. Therefore, CEQA does not apply to the proposed discretionary actions detailed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description (i.e., the Project). However, preparation of an “environmental assessment” that substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) is required (Government Code § 65759(a)). Therefore, this document constitutes the required “environmental assessment” and conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR found in State CEQA Guidelines Article 9 (§ 15120 et seq.).

4.0 Organization and Content
This EA addresses in detail the “potentially significant impacts” concerning the following environmental issues:

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Air Quality

4.3 Biological Resources

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.5 Energy

4.6 Geology and Soils

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.11 Noise

4.12 Population and Housing

4.13 Public Services and Recreation

4.14 Transportation and Traffic

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems

4.16 Wildfire

4.17 Effects Found Not to be Significant
The environmental issues determined through the scoping process as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur are: Agricultural and Forestry Resources; and Mineral Resources. Therefore, these issue areas are addressed in Section 4.17, Effects Found Not to be Significant.

Sections 4.1 through 4.16 contain a detailed environmental analysis of the existing environmental setting (baseline conditions), existing regulatory setting, project impacts (i.e., direct and indirect, short-term construction and long-term operational), relevant General Plan Policies, recommended mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable impacts. Cumulative impacts analysis can be found in each environmental issue section.

Each potentially significant environmental issue area is organized into the following subsections:

1. Setting describes the physical environmental conditions in the proposed project vicinity that could influence or affect the issue under investigation, as they exist at the time environmental analysis was commenced (August 2022), from both a local and regional perspective.

2. Regulatory Setting outlines and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards applicable to the Project.

3. Impact Analysis provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of significance and includes an “Impacts” analysis for each threshold.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update
4-2
The primary sources of the thresholds include:
 State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 – 15387)
 Local, State, Federal and other standards applicable to an impact threshold  Officially established significance thresholds.

State CEQA Guidelines § 15064[b] specifies that “...An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of any activity may vary with the setting.” Principally, “...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance” constitutes a significant impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15382).

The “Impacts” analysis for each threshold describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence, based on factual and scientific data, is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and the potential changes in the environment. All potential direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect, construction-related (short term), and operation (long-term) effects are considered. Generally, impacts are classified as no impact, less than significant impact, or potentially significant impact. This EA uses the following terminology to describe the Project’s environmental impacts:
 No Impact – the proposed project would not have any measurable environmental impact.  Less Than Significant Impact – the proposed project could impact the environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds of significance.  Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation – the proposed project would have the potential to generate an impact, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the Project’s physical or operational characteristics would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.  Significant Unavoidable Impacts – describes impacts that would be significant and cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level that is less than significant, and thus would be unavoidable.

To approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead Agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the Lead Agency is required to balance a project’s benefits against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines § 15093[a]).

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact.

4. Cumulative Impacts identifies potential environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in combination with implementation of the proposed project.

The Executive Summary of this EA summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates the potential impacts on aesthetics, including scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare, associated with the implementation of the proposed project.

Scenic or visual quality can be described best as the overall impression a viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area (Bureau of Land Management 1984). Viewer response is a function of the number of viewers, number of views seen, distance of the viewers from a given key viewpoint, and the viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity reflects the extent of public concern for a particular viewshed. A brief description of these terms and criteria follows.

Viewshed
A viewshed is an area of the landscape visible from a particular location or series of points (e.g., an overlook or a trail, respectively) (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2015). A viewshed may be divided into viewing distances called foreground, middle ground, and background. Usually, the closer a resource is to the viewer, the more dominant it appears visually, and thus it has greater importance to the viewer than something farther away. A common set of criteria identifies the foreground as 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the viewer; the middle ground is three to five miles away; and the background extends away to the horizon.

Visual Character
Natural and human-built landscape features both contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Features include geology, water features, plants, wildlife, trails and parks, and architecture and transportation elements (e.g., bridges or city skylines). The way visual character is perceived can vary based on the season, the time of day, the light, and other elements that influence what is visible in a landscape. The basic components used to describe visual character are form, line, color, and texture of landscape features (United States Forest Service [USFS] 1996, FHWA 2015).

Visual Quality
Visual quality is a term that indicates the uniqueness or desirability of a visual resource, within a frame of reference that accounts for the “apparent concern for appearance” by concerned viewers (e.g., residents, visitors, jurisdictions) (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1978). A well-established approach to visual analysis is used to evaluate visual quality, using the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity (FHWA 2015).
 Vividness describes the memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking patterns.
 Intactness refers to the visual integrity of the natural and human-built.  Unity indicates the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape as a whole.

Visual Exposure and Sensitivity
Viewer sensitivity is determined based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, the proximity of viewers to the visual resource, the height from which viewers see the resource, and the types of viewers with their associated expectations. Visual sensitivity also depends on the number and type of viewers, along with the frequency and duration of views experienced by these viewers.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-2
Once an adequate description of the visual resource and its quality is developed, including the number and types of views for common uses (e.g., recreational, agriculture), an evaluation can be made as to the impact of the proposed project upon the aesthetic and visual resources in the landscape.

4.1.1 Setting
Huntington Park is an urbanized city situated in south central Los Angeles County, approximately six miles south of downtown Los Angeles. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from within the City are limited since the existing streetscape and development obstruct the line-of-sight between many of the local roadways and the aforementioned mountains. According to Caltrans, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. The City is currently developed and does not contain any scenic rock outcroppings and vegetation that is present within the City consists of species most commonly found in an urban environment.

Housing Opportunity Sites Setting
The housing opportunity sites are largely situated along major transportation corridors as depicted in Figure 2-1 in Section 2, Project Description. These areas are developed for the most part within existing commercial, industrial, and residential uses.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
Caltrans manages the State Scenic Highway Program. The program was created in 1963 with the goal of protecting the aesthetic significance of scenic highways throughout the state. According to the State Streets and Highways Code (Section 260 through 263), a highway may be designated as scenic based on its scenic quality, how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The California Scenic Highway Program’s Scenic Highway System List identifies scenic highways that are either eligible for designation or have already been designated as such.

California Green Building Code
The California Green Building Code, Section 5.106.8, stipulates that new project site lighting must conform to standards that keep light generated on site from leaving the site by using reflectors, shields, screen walls, and any other method which complies with the Code’s intent to limit light pollution.
b. Local Regulations
City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. The General Plan lists several aesthetics goals, policies, and actions as part of the Land Use Element.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.1-3
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element (LUE) describes existing land use patterns and provides the physical framework for land use and development in the City. The LUE also contains policies to improve the City’s visual quality, including its compatibility between neighborhoods, mixed-use areas, commercial areas, and industrial areas. It describes the economic context and sets out goals and policies to stimulate development, maintain fiscal health, and support other efforts to enhance the City’s economy (Huntington Park 1991).

Urban Design Element
The Urban Design Element (UDE) further builds on the Land Use and Community Development Element, focusing on the on the quality and character of public areas and private development in the City. The UDE describes the goals, policies, and design concepts regarding the preservation and improvement of the visual quality and character of the City (Huntington Park 1991).

City of Huntington Park Municipal Code
The HPMC establishes regulations that implement the City’s General Plan. Title 8, Building Regulations of the HPMC describes the City’s specific development standards and land use requirements. Title 9, Zoning, describes the City’s zoning regulations and districts including more specific standards and development regulations governing permitted uses, yard areas, building heights, parking requirements, and other standards. HPMC Section 9-3.103.13, Lighting, provides general requirements that limit light and glare through the use of energy-efficient lighting, appropriate light fixtures, shielding devices to prevent light spilling onto adjacent properties, and directional lighting methods.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
As addressed by the CEQA analysis, aesthetics refers to visual concerns. Aesthetics or visual resources analysis is a process to assess the visible change and anticipated viewer response to that change. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), BLM, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have developed methodologies for conducting visual analysis that are used across the industry. These methods have been synthesized and used for this analysis.

While the conclusions of these assessments may seem entirely subjective, value is measured based on generally accepted measures of quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewer response, supported by consistent levels of agreement in research on visual quality evaluation. Modifications in a landscape that repeat basic elements found in that landscape are said to be in harmony with their surroundings; changes that do not harmonize often look out of place and can be found to form an unpleasant contrast when their effects are not evaluated adequately.

The following thresholds of significance were developed based on the CEQA Guidelines, specifically, Appendix G. The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to aesthetics if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Substantially damage scenic resources in a designated State scenic highway, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-4
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings; in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Create new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact AES-1 THERE ARE NO SCENIC VISTAS WITHIN THE URBANIZED CITY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

For the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is a view from a public place (roadway, designated scenic viewing spot, etc.) that is expansive and considered important by a jurisdiction or a community. It can be obtained from an elevated position (such as from the top of a hillside) or it can be seen from a roadway with a longer-range view of the landscape. An adverse effect would occur if a proposed project would block or otherwise damage a scenic vista upon implementation.

Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from within the City are limited by the existing streetscape and existing development, which obstruct the line-of-sight between many of the local roadways and the aforementioned mountains. Specifically, most of the Draft Opportunity Sites are situated on nearly flat land. Redevelopment and infill of these sites would not create an opportunity for a new view to occur, which may impede a view of a scenic vista.

The Housing Element Update includes zoning changes which would increase the height limit in the C-D district from 30-feet to 35-feet and create a height limit in the TOD of up to 65 feet. There are no scenic vistas identified in the City, as the area is highly urbanized and views of the San Gabriel Mountains are limited by existing City development, including both residential, industrial, and commercial lands. Therefore, the increase in height limits proposed by the zoning changes of the Housing Element Update would not have a substantial impact on scenic vistas in Huntington Park.

Nonetheless, with adherence to goals and policies in the existing General Plan, General Plan Update, and various City design requirements, which would be assessed during project plan review in accordance with the HPMC, potential impacts would be considered less than significant with regard to a potential adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.1-5
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact AES-2 THERE ARE NO STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS WITHIN OR NEAR CITY LIMITS, THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

There are no state designated or eligible scenic highways within the city limits of Huntington Park.

The closest eligible state scenic highway is State Route 187 in Santa Monica, located approximately 10 miles west of City limits, and is not visible from the City due to the distance and intervening development between the proposed project area and this highway (Caltrans 2019). Thus, no scenic resources would be damaged by the proposed project in or within clear view of a State-designated Scenic Highway. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 3: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, 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, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES REZONING THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE NEW RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE

PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE ZONING, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND GENERAL PLAN REGULATIONS WHICH PRESERVE SCENIC QUALITY. WITH ADHERENCE TO EXISTING AND FUTURE REGULATIONS, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Huntington Park is a highly urbanized city with a mix of low-, medium-, and high-density residences throughout the City, commercial and manufacturing uses primarily located in the western and northern areas of the City, and mixed-use development throughout the Downtown Specific Plan.

Huntington Park’s architectural style consists of an eclectic mix of designs, the most prominent styles for residential development are popular revival styles of the 1920s and 1930s, including Spanish Colonial and Classical/Colonial styles. Most of the housing opportunity sites are situated on surface parking lots that do not feature distinctive architectural styles located within the Downtown Specific Plan and commercial and manufacturing overlay zones in the western and northern areas of the City. A handful of housing opportunity sites would occur on developed lots which are currently zoned for commercial, retail, or office uses which would be re-developed for residential use.

There are 12 designated historic resources and one designated historic district on Malabar Street between Saturn Avenue and Florence Avenue in the City and no Draft Opportunity Sites are located within the historic resource sites or district (Huntington Park 2010). HPMC Article 9-3.18, Historic Preservation, provides guidelines for the designation, regulation, and preservation of historic resources within the City.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-6
Chapter 9-3 of the HPMC establishes regulations regarding the visual quality of existing and new development throughout Huntington Park, some of which include property development and landscaping standards, sign standards, and publicly visible art regulations. All development projects are required to comply with Article 9-2.18 of the HPMC which institutes design review procedures to ensure that all projects within City limits are visually and operationally compatible with surrounding development. Article 9-4.103 sets specific standards for Huntington Park’s residential development zones and Article 9-4.203 sets specific standards for mixed-use development zones, regulation topics include allowed uses, development standards, landscaping and open space requirements, and accessory structure requirements. Furthermore, the Downtown Specific Plan provides detailed development standards that guide building placement and massing, building height, parking areas, sign design, and public open space for the specific plan (Huntington Park 2008). This would apply to those Draft Opportunity Sites within the Downtown Specific Plan Area.

Largely, the housing opportunity sites are in areas where vacant lots and under-utilized parcels could accommodate new infill development without degrading the character of the neighborhood.

In many cases, redevelopment would replace pavement parking lots or aging structures with welldesigned new complexes that feature high-quality materials, increased, and maintained landscaping, having a beneficial visual impact on areas where existing development (e.g., older commercial and industrial establishments) is aging and does not align with newer development that was subject to the stringent city-wide design guidelines when developed.

The proposed project presents housing opportunity sites that could accommodate a mix of housing types, including low-income and moderate-income to market-rate housing, on the same site. This is to ensure the availability of all types of housing throughout the City and ensure that “affordable housing” does not equate to poorly designed facilities. Developments could also include retail shops, spas, restaurants, and office spaces on the first floor or mixed in with the residential development. Mixed-use development would enhance and encourage walkability and limit the need for surface-level parking. Furthermore, according to goals and policies in the General Plan, the City is committed to provide for a compatible mix of land uses, create consistent urban design, which is architecturally and functionally compatible, and preserve and enhance the existing character of the City.

With adherence to the design guidelines provided in the zoning code, the design guidelines in the existing Downtown Specific Plan, and the goals and policies of the General Plan, the proposed project would not degrade visual character and, thus, visual impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.1-7
Threshold 4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Impact AES-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CREATE NEW SOURCES OF LIGHT OR GLARE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS IN THE AREA. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

For the purposes of this analysis, light refers to light emissions (brightness) generated by a source of light. Stationary sources of light include exterior parking lot and building security lighting; moving sources of light include the headlights of vehicles driving on roadways near the proposed project area. Streetlights and other security lighting also serve as sources of light in the evening hours.

Glare is defined as focused, intense light emanated directly from a source or indirectly when light reflects from a surface. Daytime glare is caused in large part by sunlight shining on highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Reflective surfaces area associated with buildings that have expanses of polished or glass surfaces, light-colored pavement, and the windshields of parked cars.

Development that could occur through implementation of the proposed project would increase the ambient nighttime lighting at and surrounding the housing opportunity sites. Increased lighting could come from exterior lights on buildings or light spilling from streetlights. Increased glare could potentially occur because of reflective building materials, roofing materials, and windows situated so they reflect sunlight. HPMC Section 9-3.103.13, Lighting, provides general requirements that limit light and glare through the use of energy-efficient lighting, appropriate light fixtures, shielding devices to prevent light spilling onto adjacent properties, and directional lighting methods. This includes limiting the height at which light fixtures can be positioned above the ground in residential districts and states that outdoor lighting on apartment buildings and multi-use complexes be directed downward into the interior of the lot.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would mainly occur as redevelopment of existing built sites or infill development of unused parcels between existing built sites. When facilities such as parking lots are replaced with buildings, these replacements may reduce nighttime sources of light, because parking lots are often more brightly lit during the nighttime than most buildings.

Development of underutilized or vacant parcels may result in new light sources, but they would likely be congruous with nearby light sources (e.g., lighting from residential and industrial windows).

Furthermore, as the development facilitated by the proposed project would be mostly residential units, light from windows would be filtered or obscured by window coverings. Therefore, impacts related to increased light and glare under implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.1-8

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Development facilitated by the proposed project in conjunction with other nearby past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although largely visual quality would improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and sparsely landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project would encourage increased housing development citywide, mainly in areas already developed with other uses. Most projects in the City, adjacent cities, and Los Angeles County would be required to undergo analysis for impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. These impacts would be mitigated by design guidelines, regulations, policies, and project-specific mitigation measures, thereby limiting damage to existing visual resources and enhancing the visual quality of areas where development occurs.

Consequently, development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts in conflict with requirements for preserving scenic vistas, scenic resources in State- or locally designated highways or drives, visual quality, and for limiting the effects of light and glare. Therefore, proposed project implementation would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics and no further mitigation is required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed project on air quality. This section analyzes both temporary impacts relating to construction activity and possible long-term impacts associated with proposed project operation. Greenhouse gas and global climate change impacts are discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
a. Local Climate and Meteorology
The City of Huntington Park is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), which is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the San Diego County line to the south. The regional climate in the SCAB is semiarid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The air quality in the SCAB is primarily influenced by a wide range of emissions sources – such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry – and weather.

The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The SCAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, light winds, and moderate humidity.

This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is a coastal plain connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter.

The SCAB experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) because of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed in mid to late afternoons on hot summer days. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning.

The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations in the SCAB. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for maximum allowable concentrations of six "criteria" pollutants in outdoor air. Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere. Primary criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with diameters 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10), particulate matter with diameters 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Ozone (O3) is considered a secondary criteria pollutant City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-2
because it is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The standards are set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety for six common air pollutants (also known as "criteria air pollutants"). The following subsections describe the characteristics, sources, and health and atmospheric effects of criteria air contaminants.

Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a highly oxidative unstable gas produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and ROG (also referred to as volatile organic compounds [VOC]).1 VOC is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with specific exclusions), and NOX is composed of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG is formed during the combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. As a highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with multiple different atmosphere components. Consequently, high ozone levels tend to exist only while high VOC and NOX levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, ozone levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, ozone is considered a regional pollutant. In addition, because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mainly occurs in concentrations considered serious between April and October. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Depending on the level of exposure, ozone can cause coughing and a sore or scratch throat; make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously and cause pain when taking a deep breath; inflame and damage the airways; make the lungs more susceptible to infection; and aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2022).

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a localized pollutant found in high concentrations only near its source. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic’s incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Other sources of CO include the incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels at power plants and fuel combustion from wood stoves and fireplaces during the winter. When CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability to get oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where they need more oxygen than usual. As a result, they are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain, also known as angina (U.S. EPA 2022).

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion. The primary sources are motor vehicles, industrial boilers, and furnaces. The principal form of NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2, commonly called NOX. NO2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas and an acute irritant capable of damaging cell linings in the respiratory tract. 1 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines VOC and ROG similarly as “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this report.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-3
Breathing air with a high concentration of NO2 can irritate airways in the human respiratory system.

Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing), hospital admissions, and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma and children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2. NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of ozone/smog and acid rain (U.S. EPA 2022).

Particulate Matter
Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) are comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mist. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. The atmosphere, through chemical reactions, can form particulate matter. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 is generally associated with dust mobilized by wind and vehicles. In contrast, PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes and formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions.

PM10 can cause increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, and surface soiling. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24 hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2022a).

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as sulfur oxides (SOX). The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and burning fuels with a high sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (U.S. EPA 2022).

Lead
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial. However, due to the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred before 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least partly due to national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (U.S. EPA 2013). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest lead level in the air is generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-4
immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and cardiovascular system, depending on exposure. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. The lead effects most likely encountered in current populations are neurological in children. Infants and young children are susceptible to lead exposures, contributing to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered intelligence quotient (U.S. EPA 2022).

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micrometer in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair), and thus, is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, TACs can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2022c). TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health issues (U.S. EPA 2020).

DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
Fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes and form in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM10 (particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter)is a by-product of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and it is directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere also create PM10. Fine particulate matter poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an adsorbed toxic substance.

Diesel engine fuel combustion forms an important fraction of the particulate matter emission inventory, as particulates in diesel emissions are very small and readily respirable. The particles have hundreds of chemicals absorbed onto their surfaces, including many known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed and evaluated the potential for diesel exhaust to affect human health, and the associated scientific uncertainties (CARB 1998). Based on the available scientific evidence, it was determined that a level of diesel PM exposure, below which no carcinogenic effects are anticipated, has not been identified.

The Scientific Review Panel that approved the OEHHA report determined that, based on studies to date, 3 x 10-4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
) is a reasonable estimate of the unit risk for diesel
PM. This means that a person exposed to a diesel PM concentration of 1 µg/m3 continuously over Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-5
the course of a lifetime has a 3 in 10,000 chance (or 300 in one million chance) of contracting cancer due to this exposure. Based on an estimated year 2000 statewide average concentration of

1.26 µg/m3 for indoor and outdoor ambient air, about 380 excess cancers per one million population could be expected if diesel PM concentrations remained the same (California Environmental Protection Agency, CARB 2000). Therefore, these particulate emissions have been determined by CARB to be a TAC.

Diesel PM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient air toxics risk. In addition to these general risks, diesel PM can also be responsible for elevated localized or near-source exposures (“hot-spots”). Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential risks can range from small to 1,500 per million or more (California Environmental Protection Agency, CARB 2000).

CARB staff have conducted risk characterization scenarios to determine the potential excess cancer risks involved when individuals are near various sources of diesel engine emissions, ranging from school buses to high volume freeways. The purpose of the risk characterization was to estimate, through air dispersion modeling, the cancer risk associated with typical diesel-fueled engine or vehicle activities based on modeled PM concentration at the point of maximum impact. The study included various sources of diesel PM emissions, including idling school buses, truck stops, low- and high-volume freeways, and other sources. High-volume freeways (20,000 trucks per day) were estimated to cause 800 to 1,700 per million potential excess cases of cancers, while low-volume freeways (2,000 trucks per day) were estimated to cause about 100 to 200 per million potential excess cases of cancers (California Environmental Protection Agency, CARB 2000).

OTHER MOBILE SOURCE CONTAMINANTS
Besides DPM, several other pollutants that are a public health concern are emitted by vehicle exhausts. The U.S. EPA has identified six pollutants of highest priority: DPM, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene. The latter five pollutants are part of the total organic gases emitted by diesel fueled vehicles. A brief description of each of these chemicals follows:
 Acrolein is the simplest unsaturated aldehyde. It is a widely produced substance with a piercing, disagreeable, acrid smell similar to that of burning fat. Acrolein is an unstable toxic substance that can burn the nose and throat and is a severe pulmonary irritant. It is a flammable and poisonous substance prepared industrially by the oxidation of propene. Small amounts of acrolein are formed and enter the air when trees, tobacco, other plants, gasoline, and oil are burned.
 Acetaldehyde, sometimes known as ethanol, is an organic chemical compound used as an intermediate in the production of acetic acid, certain esters, and a number of other chemicals. It is a flammable liquid with a fruity smell. Acetaldehyde is a toxic when applied externally for prolonged periods, an irritant, and a probable carcinogen.  Formaldehyde is an organic chemical compound containing a terminal carbonyl group. It is produced in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight and oxygen on atmospheric methane and other hydrocarbons, becoming a part of smog. Additionally, formaldehyde is an intermediate in the oxidation (or combustion) of methane as well as other carbon compounds including automobile exhaust. Formaldehyde is a flammable substance that can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic. It is naturally made in small amounts in human bodies and is found in small amounts in household sources, such as fiberglass, carpets, permanent press fabrics, paper products, and some household cleaners.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-6
 Benzene, or benzol, is an organic chemical compound and a known carcinogen. It is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell and a relatively high melting point. Benzene is an important industrial solvent and precursor in the production of drugs, plastics, synthetic rubber, and dyes. Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil and may be synthesized from other compounds present in petroleum. It is found in gasoline and cigarette smoke. Natural sources of benzene include emissions from volcanoes and forest fires.  1,3-Butadiene is an important industrial chemical used in the production of synthetic rubber (about 75 percent of manufactured 1,3-butadiene), which is then used primarily in the production of automobile tires. It is a colorless gas with a mild gasoline-like odor. Gasoline contains small amounts that are exhausted into the air after the combustion process. It is a carcinogen, highly irritative, and flammable.
c. Sensitive Receptors
There is a strong connection between health risk and the proximity of the source of air pollution.

Local jurisdictions are responsible for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. CARB has identified the following population groups that are most likely affected by air pollution: children less than 14 years of age, adults over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Land uses where these population groups are likely to spend a substantial amount of time are considered sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are located throughout Huntington Park and the development facilitated by the proposed project would site new sensitive receptors in the City. According to SCAQMD, land uses with sensitive receptors include the following (South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD] 2005):
 Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
 Long-term health care facilities
 Rehabilitation centers
 Convalescent centers
 Hospitals
 Retirement homes
 Residences
d. Ambient Air Quality Measurements
The SCAQMD divides the SCAB into 38 source receptor areas (SRAs), wherein 38 monitoring stations operate to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants in the region. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the California and federal standards. The monitoring station located closest to the proposed project site is the Los Angeles-North Main Street monitoring station at 1630 North Main Street in Los Angeles, which is approximately 5.72 miles north of the City. The North Hollywood station monitors ozone, CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5. Table 4.2-1 indicates the number of days that each of the standards has been exceeded at the Los Angeles-North Main Street station in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

As shown in Table 4.2-1, the federal and State 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded every year from 2019 to 2021, the State worst hour ozone standard was exceeded in 2020 and 2021, and the Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-7
federal worst hour ozone standard was exceeded in 2020. In addition, the PM10 State standard was exceeded every year from 2019 to 2021 and the PM2.5 federal standard was exceeded each year from 2019 to 2021. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at nearby monitoring stations.

Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality at the Monitoring Station Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
8 Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hr Maximum1 0.08 0.118 0.085
Number of Days of State exceedances (>0.070) 1 16 1
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.070) 1 16 1
Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour1 0.093 0.185 0.099
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 14 1
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.124 ppm) 0 1 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average1 2.04 2.09 1.96 Number of days above CAAQS or NAAQS (>9.0 ppm)
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) – Worst Hour1 0.0697 0.0618 0.0778 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of Federal exceedances (0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter 10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 62.4 83.7 64.0 Number of days above Federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Number of days of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 15 34 14 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 43.5 175.0 61.0 Number of days above Federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 1 12 13 Source: CARB 2022c

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The Federal CAA governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to the requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clear Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, the CAA is administered by the U.S.

EPA. In California, the CCAA is administered by CARB at the State level and by air quality management districts (AQMDs) at the regional and local levels.

Air quality in the SCAB, in which Huntington Park is located, is addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving air quality in the SCAB are discussed below.
a. Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The CAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-8
public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409], the U.S. EPA developed Ambient Air Quality Standards which represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been designated for the following criteria pollutants of primary concern: ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

The U.S. EPA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS. States are required to adopt enforceable plans, known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the NAAQS. State plans also must control emissions that drift across state lines and harm air quality in downwind states. Table 4.2-2 lists the current federal standards for regulated pollutants.

Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard Ozone 1-Hour N/A1 0.09 ppm2
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm N/A
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual N/A 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m 50 µg/m
PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m 12 µg/m
24-Hour 35 µg/m N/A
Lead 30-Day Average N/A 1.5 µg/m
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m N/A
1 N/A: Not applicable because no standard is currently established for California 2 ppm = parts per million
3 µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016
b. State
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 39000 et seq.).

Under the CCAA, the State has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. Table 4.2-2 lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-9
California is divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the air resources of the State on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, are expected to have similar ambient air quality. If an air basin is not in either federal or state attainment for a particular pollutant, the basin is classified as a non-attainment area for that pollutant. Under the federal and State Clean Air Acts, once a non-attainment area has achieved the air quality standards for a particular pollutant, it may be redesignated to an attainment area for that pollutant. To be redesignated, the area must meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards, as well as satisfy other requirements of the federal CAA. Areas that have been redesignated to attainment are called maintenance areas. SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for the state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the State PM10 standards, and the State annual PM2.5 standard. SCAB is classified as in attainment (or unclassifiable/attainment) for all other State and federal standards.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) is the official compilation and publication of regulations adopted, amended or repealed by state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The CCR includes regulations that pertain to air quality emissions. Specifically, Section 2485 in Title 13 of the CCR states that the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location. In addition, Section 93115 in Title 17 of the CCR states that operations of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emissions standards. State Programs for Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Air Toxics Program is an established two-step process of risk identification and risk management to address potential health effects from exposure to toxic substances in the air. In the risk identification step, CARB and OEHHA determine if a substance should be formally identified, or “listed,” as a TAC in California. In the risk management step, CARB reviews emission sources of an identified TAC to determine whether regulatory action is needed to reduce risk. Based on results of that review, CARB has promulgated a number of Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs), both for stationary and mobile sources, including On-Road and Off-Road Vehicle Rules. These ATCMs include measures such as limits on heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling and emission standards for off-road diesel construction equipment in order to reduce public exposure to DPM and other TACs. These actions are also supplemented by the Assembly Bill (AB) 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” program and Senate Bill (SB) 1731, which require facilities to report their air toxics emissions, assess health risks, notify nearby residents and workers of significant risks if present, and reduce their risk through implementation of a risk management plan. SCAQMD has further adopted two rules to limit cancer and non-cancer health risks from facilities located within its jurisdiction. Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants) regulates new or modified facilities and Rule 1402 (Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources) regulates facilities that are already operating. Rule 1402 incorporates requirements of the AB 2588 program, including implementation of risk reduction plans for significant risk facilities.

DIESEL RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM
CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines as TACs in August 1998. Following the identification process, CARB was required by law to determine if there is a need for further control, which moved the State into the risk management phase of the program. CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and the Vehicles and the Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-10
Engines. The Diesel Advisory Committee approved these documents on September 28, 2000, paving the way for the next step in the regulatory process: the control measure phase. During the control measure phase, specific statewide regulations designed to further reduce DPM emissions from dieselfueled engines and vehicles have and continue to be evaluated and developed. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce DPM emissions.

State Implementation Plan
The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, State regulations, and federal controls. CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under State law. Local air quality management districts and other agencies, such as the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the California Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards the SIP revisions to the U.S. EPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in 40 CFR 52.220.

As the regional air quality management district, the SCAQMD is responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the portion of the SCAB within its jurisdiction. The air quality management district for each region adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain federal and State air quality standards and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve these standards. In addition, the following CCR sections would be applicable to the project:
 Engine Idling. In accordance with Section 2485 of CCR Title 13, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location.
 Emission Standards. In accordance with Section 93115 of CCR Title 17, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.
c. Regional
To meet the NAAQS and CAAQS, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs that serve as a regional blueprint to develop and implement an emission reduction strategy that will bring the area into attainment with the standards in a timely manner. The most significant air quality challenge in the Air Basin is to reduce NOX emissions to meet the 2037 ozone standard deadline for the nonCoachella Valley portion of the South Coast Air Basin, as NOX plays a critical role in the creation of ozone. The 2022 SCAQMD AQMP includes strategies to ensure the SCAQMD does its part to further the district’s ability to meet the 2015 federal ozone standards. The district would need to reduce emissions of NOX by 67 percent beyond what is required by the adopted rules and regulations in 2037 to meet the 2015 federal ozone standard (SCAQMD 2022a). The 2022 AQMP builds on the measures already in place from the previous AQMPs and includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technology, best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs, incentives, and other CAA measures to meet the 8- hour ozone standard. Since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-11
needed to meet the ozone standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of annual PM2.5 standards (SCAQMD 2017).2
The SCAQMD’s strategy to meet the NAAQS and CAAQS distributes the responsibility for emission reductions across federal, State, and local levels and industries. The majority of these emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships, and other State and federally-regulated mobile source emissions the majority of which are beyond SCAQMD’s control. The SCAQMD has limited control over truck emissions with rules such as Rule 1196. The 2022 AQMP is composed of stationary and mobile source emission reductions including traditional regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, cobenefits from climate programs, mobile source strategies, and reductions from federal sources (e.g., aircraft, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels). These strategies are to be implemented in partnership with the CARB and U.S. EPA. The district will not meet the standard without significant federal action. In addition to federal action, the 2022 AQMP relies on substantial future development of advanced technologies to meet the standards, including the transition to zero- and low-emission technologies. Of the needed NOx emissions reductions, 46 percent will come from federal actions, 34 percent from CARB actions, and 20 percent will come directly from SCAQMD actions (SCAQMD 2022a).

The AQMP also incorporates the transportation strategy and transportation control measures from SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (Connect SoCal) (SCAG 2020). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG coordinates with various air quality and transportation stakeholders in southern California to ensure compliance with the federal and State air quality requirements. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460, SCAG has the responsibility of preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to the regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. SCAG is required by law to ensure that transportation activities “conform” to, and are supportive of, the goals of regional and State air quality plans to attain the NAAQS. Connect SoCal includes transportation programs, measures, and strategies generally designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are contained in the AQMP. The SCAQMD combines its portion of the AQMP with measures prepared by SCAG (SCAQMD 2022a).

Connect SoCal and Transportation Control Measures, included as Appendix IV-C of the 2022 AQMP, are based on SCAG’s Connect SoCal.

The 2022 AQMP forecasts the 2037 emissions inventories ‘‘with growth’’ based on SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The region is projected to see a 12 percent growth in population, 17 percent growth in housing units, 11 percent growth in employment, and 5 percent growth in VMT between 2018 and 2037.

Despite regional growth in the past, air quality has improved substantially over the years, primarily due to the effects of air quality control programs at the local, State, and federal levels (SCAQMD 2022a). Project-level significance thresholds established by local air quality management district’s set the level at which a project would cause or have a cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. Therefore, if a project’s air pollutant emissions exceed the NAAQS and/or CAAQS, the proposed project could cause or contribute to human health impacts. 2 Estimates are based on the inventory and modeling results and are relative to the baseline emission levels for each attainment year (see Final 2022 AQMP for detailed discussion).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-12
SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Documents
The SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD’s Governing Board in 1993) to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts (SCAQMD 1993). The CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses. However, the SCAQMD is currently in the process of replacing the CEQA Air Quality Handbook with the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. While this process is underway, the SCAQMD has provided supplemental guidance on the SCAQMD website (SCAQMD 2022b).

The SCAQMD has also adopted land use planning guidelines in its Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, which considers impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions (SCAQMD 2005). SCAQMD’s siting distance recommendations are the same as those provided by CARB (e.g., a 500-foot siting distance for sensitive land uses proposed in proximity to freeways and high-traffic roads, and the same siting criteria for distribution centers and dry cleaning facilities). The SCAQMD’s document introduces land use-related policies that rely on design and distance parameters to minimize emissions and lower potential health risk.

SCAQMDs guidelines are voluntary initiatives recommended for consideration by local planning agencies.

The SCAQMD has published a guidance document called the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA evaluations that is intended to provide guidance when evaluating the localized effects from mass emissions during construction or operation of a project (SCAQMD 2008). The SCAQMD adopted additional guidance regarding PM2.5 emissions in a document called Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2006). The latter document has been incorporated by the SCAQMD into its CEQA significance thresholds and Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.

SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
SCAQMD has adopted several rules and regulations to regulate sources of air pollution in the Air Basin and to help achieve air quality standards for land use development projects. Rules and regulations relevant to the proposed project include the following:
 Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. This rule states that a person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view. Implementation of PDF AQ-1, as detailed in Section 4.2.3, Impact Analysis, would reduce visible emissions during project construction.
 Rule 402 – Nuisance. This rule applies to the transfer of gasoline from any tank truck, trailer, or railroad tank car into any stationary storage tank or mobile fueler, and from any stationary storage tank or mobile fueler into any mobile fueler or motor vehicle fuel tank. This rule has specific requirements for facility equipment and operation, such as operating signs, daily maintenance inspection protocol, and periodic compliance inspection protocol.  Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule pertains to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. The rule has best available control measures that are applicable to all construction activity sources. New construction would be required to comply with all provisions of Rule 403 as detailed in Section 4.2.3, Impact Analysis, under PDF AQ-1.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-13
 Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. This rule limits the content of VOC in architectural coatings that are supplied, sold, offered for sale, and manufactured within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.

Effective January 1, 2019, all building envelope coatings were limited to a VOC content of 50 grams per liter.
 Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. This rule requires owners and operators of any demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials, any asbestos storage facility, or any active waste disposal site to implement work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials.
 Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. This rule applies to stationary compression ignition engines greater than 50 brake horsepower and sets limits on emissions and operating hours. In general, new stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled engines greater than 50 brake horsepower are not permitted to operate more than 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing. d. Local
City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. The General Plan lists several air quality and emissions goals, policies, and actions as part of the Open Space and Conservation Element. The following goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project (Huntington Park 1991):

OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The Open Space and Conservation Element describes existing air quality and energy conservation patterns in the City. The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the goals and policies for reducing air pollution and emissions through land use, transportation, and energy use planning (Huntington Park 1991).

City of Huntington Park General Plan Environmental Justice Element The City of Huntington Park General Plan Environmental Justice Element was adopted in November 2022. The Environmental Justice Element contains a comprehensive set of goals and policies aimed at increasing the role and influence of historically marginalized populations and reducing their exposure to environmental and health hazards. The following goal, policies, and programs from the Environmental Justice Element are relevant to air quality (City of Huntington Park 2022):

Goal 1: Protect the Huntington Park community from the harmful effects of pollution exposure.

Policy 1.1: Reduce Particulate Matter (Diesel PM and PM 2.5) pollution for sensitive land uses by establishing roadway-adjacent pollution mitigation strategies (green walls, vegetative barriers, etc.) in locations where a major local roadway interfaces with a sensitive land use by the year 2024.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-14
Program 1.1.1: Establish vegetative barriers or green wall barriers in the following locations to protect sensitive land uses from pollution impacts by the year 2024: Salt Lake Avenue, Florence Avenue, Randolph Street, Gage Avenue, Miles Avenue.

Policy 1.2: Reduce the impacts of particulate matter and toxic release air pollution on sensitive receptors in the city by establishing an Air Filtration Support program that provides funding and support for low-income and disabled residents to install indoor air filtration improvements.

Program 1.2.1: By the end of 2025, the Community Development Department shall establish an Air Filtration Grant as part of the future Safe-at-Home Grant Program, to provide low-income residents with access to in-home HEPA air filters at little-to-no-cost.

Policy 1.3: Protect residents from air pollution impacts by raising awareness and providing information to residents about the health consequences of poor air quality and potential strategies for personal adaptation.

Program 1.3.1: Publish daily air quality updates using the Air Quality Index on the City’s webpage and highlight days when air quality is notably critical.

Program 1.3.2: By Fall 2023, establish a page on the City’s webpage dedicated to the air quality context in Huntington Park, including local resources for adaptation.

Policy 1.5: Replace City vehicles with zero or low-emissions vehicles, when feasible, for noncommercial and public safety uses in order to work toward a low-emissions City target by 2030.

Program 1.5.1: Develop a low-emissions fleet vehicle plan by the year 2026, with a goal of reducing City vehicle emissions and identifying funding resources, including Statesponsored funding and other grant initiatives to support this effort.

Policy 1.6: Advocate for all local public schools to be retrofitted with MERV-13 filtration to protect students from local air pollution risk by the year 2024.

Program 1.6.1: Regularly coordinate with Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to ensure that all Huntington Park school classrooms have been retrofitted with MERV-13 air filtration, per LAUSD’s 2022 COVID-19 Containment, Response, and Control Plan.

Policy 1.10: Reduce air pollution exposure as a result of commercial vehicles and truck routes across the city by designating Truck Prohibited Streets and enforcing truck idling requirements.

Program 1.10.1: The Community Development Department shall perform a detailed analysis of truck routes in the planning area to identify routes abutting residential land uses that can be effectively rerouted. By 2025, develop a Truck Route Ordinance to designate Truck Prohibited Streets and include fines and penalties to enforce restrictions.

Program 1.10.2: Implement California’s five-minute truck idling maximum law, which prohibits truck idling for more than five minutes and requires warehouses and distribution facilities to provide adequate on-site truck parking.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-15
Program 1.10.3: By 2025, erect signage in locations in which truck idling commonly occurs, that clearly indicates the prohibition of truck idling beyond five minutes.

Policy 1.11: Reduce cumulative air pollution exposure across the city by implementing the policies and programs outlined within the Southeast Los Angeles Community Emissions Reduction Plan adopted on 12/4/2020.

Policy 1.12: Locate sensitive uses (i.e., residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, churches, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes) away from significant pollution sources to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy 1.17: Pursue funding through EPA Renovate Right Program to train local residential contractors for certification as lead renovators to promote safe work practices and prevent lead contamination.

Program 1.20.1: Explore the feasibility of requiring contractor training and/or certification for safe work practices to conduct residential renovations for pre1980s structures that may contain lead paint.

Policy 1.18: Encourage the use of ecologically based landscape design principles to support improved air quality by absorbing CO2, producing oxygen, and providing shade that reduces energy required for cooling.

Program 1.21.1: As part of the development review process, provide a handout that outlines ecologically based landscape design principles, including the incorporation of parklets, landscaped medians, and landscaping within development.

Policy 1.21: Develop and maintain public programs to increase access to at-home pollution exposure remediation for residents of Huntington Park, including lead-based paint inspections and household air purification devices.

Southeast Los Angeles Community Emissions Reduction Plan The Southeast Los Angeles Community Emissions Reduction Plan (Southeast Los Angeles CERP) is a critical part of implementing AB 617, a California law that addresses the disproportionate impacts of air pollution in environmental justice communities. The Southeast Los Angeles CERP outlines goals and actions to reduce air pollution in the Southeast Los Angeles community, including Huntington Park. The air quality priorities addressed in the Southeast Los Angeles CERP include truck traffic and freeways, railyards, rendering facilities, metal processing facilities, green space, and general industrial facilities. The Southeast Los Angeles CERP includes actions, such as developing and enforcing regulations, providing incentives to accelerate the adoption of cleaner technologies, and conducting outreach to provide useful information to support the public in making informed choices. The progress of the Southeast Los Angeles CERP is tracked on a yearly basis by SCAQMD (SCAQMD 2020).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-16

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

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;

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

SCAQMD Thresholds
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the regional air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The SCAQMD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions in its SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and supplemental updates (SCAQMD 1993, 2008, and 2019).

Regional Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends the use of quantitative regional significance thresholds to evaluate emissions generated by temporary construction activities and long-term project operation in the SCAB, which are shown in Table 4.2-3. Project-level significance thresholds established by local air districts set the level at which a project would cause or have a cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of a federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, if a project’s air pollutant emissions exceed the significance thresholds, the project could cause or contribute to the human health impacts described under Section 4.2.1b, Air Pollutants of Primary Concern. For example, SCAQMD has set its operational significance threshold for VOCs based in part on the significance level for stationary sources of emissions established by Section 182(e) of the federal CAA. SCAQMD developed its other significance thresholds “based on scientific and factual data that is contained in the federal and state Clean Air Acts” (SCAQMD 1993).

Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
75 pounds per day of ROG 55 pounds per day of ROG
100 pounds per day of NOX 55 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO 550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX 150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10 150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-17
The SCAQMD has also developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions within construction areas up to five acres in size.

The City is located in SRA 12. SCAQMD sets LST values for construction and operation of projects with lot sizes from less than one acre up to five acres and at a distance of 25 meters to 500 meters (SCAQMD 2008). LSTs only apply to on-site emissions and are not applicable to off-site mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008). As such, LSTs for future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would apply to construction emissions and on-site operational emissions.

As appropriate, analysis of individual future projects facilitated by the proposed project must address the applicable threshold based on the SRA, size of the project site, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. Table 4.2-4 presents the LST values for construction within 25 meters of sensitive receptors, the most conservative thresholds. Table 4.2-5 presents the LST values for operation within 25 meters of sensitive receptors, the most conservative thresholds.

Table 4.2-4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Within 25 Meters of Sensitive Receptors (SRA-12)
Allowable Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant 1-Acre Site or less 2-Acre Site 5-Acre Site
NOX 46 65 98
CO 231 346 630
PM10 4 7 13
PM2.5 3 4 7
Source: SCAQMD 2009
Table 4.2-5 SCAQMD LSTs for Operation Within 25 Meters of Sensitive Receptors (SRA-12) Allowable Operation Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant 1-Acre Site or less 2-Acre Site 5-Acre Site
NOX 46 65 98
CO 231 346 630
PM10 1 2 4
PM2.5 1 1 2
Source: SCAQMD 2009

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
The U.S. EPA considers those pollutants that could cause cancer risks between one in 10,000 (1.0 x 10 4) and one in one million (1.0 x 10-6) for risk management. Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6), enacted in 1986, prohibits a person in the course of doing business City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-18
from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical that has been listed as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning. For a chemical that is listed as a carcinogen, the “no significant risk” level under Proposition 65 is defined as the level that is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals (1.0 x 10-5
). The SCAQMD recommends the use of this risk level (also reportable as 10 in one million) as the significance threshold for TACs (SCAQMD 2019). The SCAQMD also recommends that the non-carcinogenic hazards of TACs should not exceed a hazard index (the summation of the hazard quotients for all chemicals to which an individual would be exposed) of 1.0 for either chronic or acute effects (SCAQMD 2019).
b. Methodology
The terminology and methodology used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts to air quality are described below. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. The City uses SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The City relies upon the expertise of the SCAQMD, uses the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance as the guidance for the environmental review of plans and development proposals. For purposes of this analysis, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria are used, supplemented by the thresholds identified in current SCAQMD guidance.

Air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project are assessed at a programmatic level because information on specific future residential development facilitated by the Housing Element and General Plan Update is not known at this time. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that the air quality assessment should be as comprehensive as possible at a programmatic level. In the absence of SCAQMD programmatic thresholds, this EIR analysis broadly examines temporary construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and localized pollutant concentrations. Common sources of construction emissions include heavy-duty off-road construction equipment exhaust, fugitive dust, and architectural coatings. Sources of operational emissions include the use of consumer products, motor vehicle trips attracted to or generated by land use, and on-site combustion of natural gas. A best-effort approach to disclose all reasonably foreseeable impacts based on available information is used consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Operational emissions have been calculated based on forecast growth in the City from existing conditions (2021) through 2029, the life of the proposed project. Interim year calculations have not been conducted because the anticipated timing of land use changes and new development during interim years would be speculative. In general, economic activity tends to vary over the short term with recessions and booms substantially affecting short-term growth. Over the long-term planning horizon, such variations tend to balance out. The City cannot reasonably anticipate whether shortterm growth would be linear or sporadic between 2021 and 2029. Given this uncertainty, interim year emissions analyses are unlikely to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of emissions prior to 2029. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that interim year calculations would produce substantially different operational emission estimates or conclusions regarding the significance of such emissions than presented herein. For these reasons, calculating operational emissions for interim year scenarios would not provide the public with any more valuable information than what is presented in this EIR.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-19
Construction
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still cause adverse air quality impacts.

Construction of development facilitated by the proposed project would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances.

At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Rather, construction impacts for the proposed project are discussed qualitatively and emissions are not compared to the project-level thresholds.

Operation
Development facilitated by the proposed project would generate mobile source emissions, energy use emissions (natural gas combustion), and area source emissions.

MOBILE SOURCES
Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in vehicle trips throughout the City associated with development facilitated by the proposed project. Mobile source emissions were estimated using VMT data prepared by Translutions, Inc and mobile emissions rates from CalEEMod.

As shown Table 4.2-6, development facilitated by the proposed project would gradually increase vehicle trips and VMT. However, VMT per service population would decrease due to reduced trip lengths.

Table 4.2-6 Vehicle Activity Data for the Housing Element and General Plan Update Activity Existing (2020) Future + Project (2040)
Total Vehicle Trips 120,315 130,404
Total VMT 1,099,804 1,174,656
Total VMT per service population 9.14 9.01
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 Quantities include trucks.

Source: Translutions, Inc 2023

ENERGY SOURCES
Emissions from energy use include electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are based on U.S. EPA’s AP-42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009). Development facilitated by the proposed project would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE).

The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod version 2022.1 include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod currently incorporates California’s 2019 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards. As the proposed project is for the years 2021-2029, projects approved subsequent to December 2022 would be subject to at least 2022 Title 24 standards.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-20

AREA SOURCES
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating, were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, U.S. EPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2022).
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact AQ-1 THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS OR POLICIES OF APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLANS SUCH AS SCAQMD’S 2022 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.2.2c, Regional Regulatory Setting, the SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for the federal and state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the State PM10 standards, and the federal and State annual PM2.5 standard. The SCAQMD adopted its latest AQMP, the 2022 AQMP, on December 2, 2022.

A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate substantial population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds forecasts used in the development of the AQMP or if the project is inconsistent with applicable AQMP control measures. The 2022 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local general plans and the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections for regional population, housing, and employment growth.

Consistency with AQMP Growth Forecasts
Consistent with State housing element law, the purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate the development of adequate housing to meet housing needs associated with the most recent SCAG forecasts of regional growth. Development facilitated by the proposed project could add an estimated up to 2,668 additional residential units in the City by the year 2029 (see Section 2, Project Description). This additional housing would lead to an increase of approximately 10,646 residents in the City from 2021 to 2029. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, although development facilitated by the proposed project could exceed the SCAG regional population projection, the 2021-2029 Housing Element Growth anticipated is intended in part to meet regional housing needs over the long term, as it includes state mandated housing goals. The proposed project would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA. Although the Housing Element would facilitate development beyond what is forecast in SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020 Plan, it would bring the forecasts for the City’s General Plan and the RTP/SCS into consistency since the RTP/SCS will be updated in the next cycle to reflect new forecasts for each city in the region. Therefore, although the proposed project would result in the development of 2,668 additional housing units, this increase in housing is consistent with SCAG forecasts of regional growth and the Housing Element would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the development of the AQMP. 3 Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
Consistency with the 2022 AQMP is also a function of consistency with applicable AQMP control measures. The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air pollutant emissions in order 3 The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS forecasts population for Huntington Park will increase to 64,000 persons and 16,500 households in 2045.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-21
to meet federal and State air quality standards. One of the most important methods the AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCMs are defined in the 2022 AQMP as “any control measure to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions.

TCMs can include encouraging the use of carpools and mass transit. Under federal law, this includes, but is not limited to those measures listed in CAA Section 108(f).” The TCMs included in the 2022 AQMP are described in SCAG’s Final 2020 RTP/SCS and 2021 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The TCM identified for Huntington Park includes new signal poles, conduit, wiring, controller cabinets, and video detection. The locations include Slauson Avenue at Alameda Street, Slauson Avenue at Santa Fe Avenue, Slauson Avenue at Miles Avenue/Soto Street, Slauson Avenue at Boyle Avenue/State Street, and Slauson Avenue at Downey Road/Malburg Way (LAOG1669). The completion date for this TCM is February 1, 2023. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of TCMs from the AQMP, or otherwise lessen emissions reductions associated with these measures.

The proposed project would help reduce reliance on the automobile and increase use of alternative transportation modes. By increasing the overall population density of the community and encouraging mixed land uses, implementation of the proposed project would largely reduce per capita automobile trips and travel distances as compared to existing conditions or lower density development more widely distributed throughout the City. This would generally reduce per capita air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle use.

As the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of TCMs from the AQMP and would include policies to further reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting affordable and multi-family housing, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP control measures.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-22
Threshold 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 AQ-2 WITHOUT MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT

FACILITATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF A CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE REGION IS NON-ATTAINMENT AREA.

IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 AND AQ-2 WOULD REQUIRE AIR QUALITY STUDIES AND

PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FACILITATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE DESPITE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES.

Construction
The proposed project would involve activities that result in air pollutant emissions. Specifically, construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading.

The extent of daily emissions generated by construction equipment, particularly VOCs and NOX, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the number of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials off site is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.2.3a, Thresholds of Significance, the SCAQMD has not established planlevel significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) of the development facilitated by the proposed project is not available to perform project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts.

Therefore, a more qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.

Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis.

Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, including Rule 401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Specifically, Rule 403 requires the use of best available control measures for all construction activities to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The major construction elements addressed by Rule 403 include earth moving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads, open storage piles, demolition, and other various construction activities. Rule 403 compliance by individual property owners, developers, and/or contractors would reduce temporary construction-related air pollutant emissions of fugitive dust. In addition, Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings to minimize VOC emissions from the off-gassing of exterior and interior paints. Construction of development facilitated by the proposed project could temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-23
Operational
The greatest source of criteria pollutants in Huntington Park is and will continue to be from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway vehicle volumes. In addition, natural gas usage and area sources (e.g., landscaping and other mechanical equipment) also contribute to criteria air pollutant emissions in Huntington Park. The proposed project would help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, such as intensification and reuse of already developed lands in proximity to transit and commercial areas, which would result in VMT reductions.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the City’s housing goal is to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the proposed project to accommodate the RHNA with a buffer (2,668 housing units) throughout the eight-year planning period. Table 4.2-7 shows the estimated average daily operational emissions associated with the residential development facilitated under proposed project.

Table 4.2-7 Operational Emissions under the Housing Element and General Plan Update
Scenario
Daily Emissions (Pounds/Day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 1 1 9 <0.1 1 <0.1
Area Sources 787 57 1,508 3 191 187
Energy Sources 1 7 3 <0.1 1 1
Total 789 65 1,520 4 193 188
SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: See Appendix D for CalEEMod outputs.

As shown in Table 4.2-7, the build out of the RHNA accommodated under the proposed project would generate criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD operational daily emission thresholds.

Therefore, operational air quality emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would address construction and operational emissions associated with future development projects facilitated by the proposed project.

AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
The City shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze construction emissions for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project. The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that proposed project construction emissions are less than applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as applicable may include, but is not limited to, the following mitigations:
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-24
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation.  Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In the event that Tier 4 engines are not available for any off-road equipment larger than 100 horsepower, that equipment shall be equipped with a Tier 3 engine or an engine that is equipped with retrofit controls to reduce exhaust emissions of NOx and DPM to no more than Tier 3 levels unless certified by engine manufacturers or the onsite air quality construction mitigation manager that the use of such devices is not practical for specific engine types.
 All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.  Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, construction contractors shall identify and implement best available dust control measures during active construction operations capable of generating dust.
 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Huntington Park regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The SCAQMD’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AQ-2 Operations Emissions Reduction
Future applicants at the opportunity sites shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze operational emissions for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project. The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that proposed project operational emissions are less than applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as applicable may include, but is not limited to, the following mitigation:
 Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan.  Installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations  Public infrastructure improvements (e.g., bus stop shelter improvements)  Carpool or ridesharing programs
 Subsidized transit costs
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-25
 Unbundled parking costs
 Bicycle amenities (storage, showers, lockers, etc.)
 Use of all-electric appliances (i.e., elimination of natural gas service)  Use solar or low emission water heaters that exceed Title 24 requirements  Increased walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements  Required use of electric lawnmowers, leaf-blowers, and chainsaws Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities. Actions include watering on site, sweeping roads and public streets daily, reducing vehicle speed on unpaved roads to limit the amount of soil and dust disturbed, reducing construction equipment idling, and finely tuning and maintaining equipment. However, as exact details of future project-specific construction activities under the proposed project are unknown at this stage of planning, construction emissions could still violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in terms of criteria air pollutant emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions and require an analysis of operational emissions for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 includes implementation of transportation demand management plan, use of all-electric appliances’ use of solar or low emissions water heaters, and required use of electric lawnmowers, leaf-blowers, and chainsaws. However, as exact details of future projectspecific operational activities under the proposed project are unknown at this stage of planning, operational emissions could still violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in terms of criteria air pollutant emissions. Therefore, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact AQ-3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECTS LASTING LONGER THAN TWO MONTHS OR LOCATED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO OPERATIONAL SOURCES OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS. IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

IMPACTS FROM OPERATION WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. IMPACTS FROM CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION LSTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Localized Significance Thresholds
Implementation of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels. Localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3
) and can be correlated to potential health effects. LSTs are the number of project-related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3 ) would exceed the AAQS for criteria air
pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-26

CONSTRUCTION LSTS
The buildout of the proposed project would occur over approximately 8 years or longer via several smaller projects, each with its own construction period and equipment. Because an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level, quantification of LSTs is not applicable for the program-level environmental analysis of the proposed project. Because potential development could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be facilitated by the proposed project have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a potentially significant impact.

OPERATION LSTS
The type of land usesthat could generate substantial amounts of stationary source emissionsinclude industrial land uses, which would not be facilitated by the proposed project. The proposed project includes the development of 2,668 residential units, which are not expected to generate substantial amounts of stationary source emissions. However, because an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level, quantification of LSTs is not applicable for the program-level environmental analysis of the proposed project. Therefore, localized operation-related air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above a carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard; elevated CO levels can occur at roadway intersections that experience high traffic volumes and severe vehicle congestion. Historically, mobile source-related CO concentrations at high-volume (e.g., congested) intersections have been linked to health concerns according to U.S. EPA and SCAQMD.

CO attainment was demonstrated in the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP and the region has remained in attainment of CO standards ever since. According to the 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels have cut peak CO levels in half since 1980 despite growth (CARB 2004). With cleaner technologies, automobile emissions of CO have steadily declined over the years.

A detailed carbon monoxide analysis was conducted during the preparation of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high average daily traffic (ADT) intersections in the SCAB, those which would be expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The highest CO concentration observed was at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in Los Angeles and near the I-405 Freeway. The concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below the state and federal standards. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003). The 2003 1-hour concentration for this intersection was

4.6 ppm, which indicates that the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm) would likely not be exceeded until the daily traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day (Los Angeles 2016).

Based on traffic volumes provided by Translutions, Inc, the highest volume intersection is East Florence Avenue between Salt Lake Avenue and California Avenue with a future ADT estimated to be 73,176 (Translutions, Inc 2023). The City does not have any intersections that would foreseeably Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-27
experience daily volumes exceeding 400,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed project would not have potential to contribute to localized CO concentrations at intersections that exceed state CO standards.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

CONSTRUCTION
Development facilitated by the proposed project would result in DPM exhaust emissions from offroad, heavy-duty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other miscellaneous construction activities. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential non-cancer4 health impacts (CARB 2022b).

Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of development facilitated by the proposed project would occur over a period of many years, but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identifying specific project details and locations.

The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the development (OEHHA 2015).

Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the applicable 2022 SCAQMD AQMP or most recent version, SCAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Additionally, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring implementation of construction emission measures which would reduce construction-related TACs.

According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months and placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant risk impacts. These future projects could exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index 4 Non-cancer risks include premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function (CARB 2021a).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-28
(Chronic or Acute). Therefore, construction impacts from TAC emissions would be potentially significant.

OPERATION
Residential land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on review of the air toxic sources listed in SCAQMD’s and CARB’s guidelines. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the types of proposed residential land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Because development facilitated by the proposed project would not include substantial TAC sources and is consistent with CARB and SCAQMD guidelines, it would not result in the exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-3 Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment
The City shall require a construction health risk assessment (HRA) for future development projects that have the following three characteristics:
 The project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.  Project construction would last longer than two months.  Project construction would not utilize equipment rated U.S. EPA Tier 4 (for equipment of 50 horsepower or more); construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (or equivalent) for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more; or implement the use of alternative fuel construction equipment.

The construction HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following SCAQMD thresholds:
 Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or  Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average.

If risk exceeds the thresholds, the project applicant and/or construction contractor shall incorporate measures such as requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters, and/or alternative fuel construction equipment to reduce the risk to appropriate levels. The project applicant shall provide the construction HRA to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would mitigate potential construction-related TACs exposure impacts to a less than significant level. However, as exact details of future project-specific construction and operation under the proposed project are unknown at this stage of planning and a LST analysis cannot be performed at this stage of planning, construction and operational emissions could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions under the construction and operation LSTs. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.2-29
Threshold 4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQ-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE ODORS ADVERSELY AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

For construction activities, odors would be short-term in nature and are subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, development facilitated by the Housing Element would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant.

Common sources of operational odor complaints include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. Development facilitated by the proposed project would not include these uses as the proposed project entails residential uses that do not typically emit odors.

Solid waste generated by the proposed residential uses would be collected by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the proliferation of odors. Operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the Environmental Setting, the SCAB is named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys below. The SCAB encompasses all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Cumulative projects would include any reasonably anticipated development in SCAB for regional air quality impacts, as well as housing development accommodated under the proposed project for localized air quality impacts.

Conflict with Applicable Air Quality Plan
The proposed project does not encourage or promote growth beyond the SCAG forecasts of regional growth; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the development of the AQMP. The proposed project would include policies that help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, such as intensification and reuse of already developed lands in proximity to transit and commercial areas, which would result in VMT reductions and would not conflict with implementation of TCM from the AQMP. Similar to direct air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.2-30
National and State Air Quality Standards
In order to assess cumulative impacts of emissions, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with AQMP performance standards and project-specific emissions thresholds. In the case of the proposed project, air pollutant emissions would be considered to be cumulatively considerable if the new sources of emissions exceed SCAQMD project-specific emissions thresholds. The cumulative context for consideration of most air quality impacts is the SCAB. The context for localized significance thresholds is within 1,500 feet of the project site per SCAQMD LST guidance, as health risks generally decrease by about 90 percent at 1,500 feet from the emission source (SCAQMD 2017).

As discussed under Impact AQ-2, construction activities and operation of development facilitated by the proposed project could result in significant impacts related to criteria emissions. Without a specific construction schedule, timing and emission levels cannot be accurately estimated; it is possible that multiple construction projects would occur concurrently and immediately adjacent to one another and thereby result in cumulative construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, reasonably expected construction and operation from the proposed project has the potential to be cumulatively considerable. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce emissions generated by various construction activities, including equipment operation, truck trips, and painting and operational sources including vehicle use, natural gas use, and other area sources. Furthermore, development facilitated by the proposed project would include development that is substantially similar to existing residential projects and continued enforcement of existing regulations would reduce potential for multiple adjacent development projects to contribute to deterioration of air quality. Since exact details of future project-specific construction and operation under the proposed project are unknown at this stage of planning, impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

Toxic Air Contaminants
As identified under Impact AQ-3, development facilitated by the proposed project would not have a significant impact from TACs with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of the pollutants in the region. In other words, the cancer risk and non-cancer risk thresholds have been set per existing cancer risks in the area and exceeding those thresholds would be considered a significant cumulative impact. As implementation of the proposed project would not exceed those thresholds, it would not expose sensitive receptors to a cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations from TACs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to toxic air contaminants.

Odors
Cumulative projects could result in significant odor impacts. As identified under Impact AQ-4, development facilitated by the Housing Element and General Plan Update would not have a significant impact from odor emissions. Construction emissions would disperse rapidly with distance, and therefore construction projects near one another would not result in combined odors above those analyzed. In addition, development facilitated by the proposed project would not contain uses known to result in objectionable odors and therefore cumulative odor impacts from development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative odor impacts.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-1

4.3 Biological Resources
This section assesses potential impacts to biological resources. The urbanized environment in the City limits the number of biological resources that are present and those that may be affected by the proposed project.

A formal Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA” or “assessment”) was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. February 2023 in support of the City and the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and General Plan Update. The Biological Study Area (“BSA” or “Study Area”) described in the BRA, consists of all land within the limits of the City plus a 500-foot buffer. The formal BRA is included in this EA as Appendix E.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Huntington Park is located in south central Los Angeles County, approximately six (6) miles south of downtown Los Angeles, 18 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and 1.9 miles west of the Los Angeles River. Huntington Park lies entirely within Township 2 South, Range 13 West, Section 11 San Bernardino Principal Meridian of the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey’s (USGS’) California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The proposed project is bound by the city of Vernon and the City of Los Angeles to the north, the City of Bell to the east, the City of South Gate to the south, and the unincorporated community of Walnut Park to the south and west. Huntington Park is surrounded by major freeways in every direction, with Interstate 10 to the north, California State Route (CA) 710 to the east, CA 105 to the south, and CA 110 to the west. The City is fully urbanized and generally lacks native biological habitat. Existing and potential natural resources are limited.

The City does not contain any forests, bodies of water, or agricultural land, nor is it substantial to plant or wildlife habitats (City of Huntington Park 1991).

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-2
regulations. As of May 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision regarding Sackett vs. EPA Limits Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, whereas, reducing the Clean Water Act’s geographic reach and the definition of “waters of the United States”. In this decision, the Court decided the following, in summary:
 “Adjacent wetlands” are WOTUS only if there is a continuous surface connection between the wetland and a navigable or relatively permanent water body, such that it is difficult to determine the boundary between the wetland and the water body. The opinion notes that “temporary interruptions to surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells”.
 The Significant Nexus Standard, introduced by the Court in prior decisions and codified in the agencies’ current regulations, is not mentioned in the Clean Water Act, and therefore the EPA has no statutory basis to impose it. Additionally, the standard includes ecological factors whose use in determining jurisdiction is not supported by the statute.  Although jurisdiction over tributaries was not addressed by the Court, current regulations rely upon the Significant Nexus Standard to establish jurisdiction over tributaries that flow infrequently. The decision hints that these tributaries will be non-jurisdictional going forward, stating, “…the [Clean Water Act’s] use of “waters” encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the U.S. EPA.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA are not waters of the United States.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters is defined by the "ordinary high-water mark" (OHWM) unless adjacent wetlands are present. The OHWM is a line on the shore or edge of a channel established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed upon the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of vegetation, or the presence of debris (33 CFR 328.3(e)). As such, waters are recognized in the field by the presence of a defined watercourse with appropriate physical and topographic features. If wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, waters of the United States, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edge of the wetlands (33 CFR 328.4 (c)). The upstream limit of jurisdiction in the absence of adjacent wetlands is the point beyond which the OHWM is no longer perceptible (33 CFR 328.4; see also 51 FR 41217).

WETLANDS
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The following is a discussion of each of these parameters.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-3
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
 Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands  Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands  Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
 Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands  Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) fall within these categories. Any species not appearing on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5% vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material.

Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.

If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands), or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by field indicators, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in wetlands.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States and applies to all structures and work. It City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-4
further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The USFWS also has responsibility for project review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

This statute requires that all federal agencies consult with USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, and the State’s wildlife agency (CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify streams and other water bodies. Under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, and the CDFW review applications for permits issued under Section 404 and provide comments to USACE about potential environmental impacts.

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Generally, the USFWS implements the ESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the ESA for marine and anadromous species.

Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the ESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-5
killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, humanintroduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." "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."
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-6
b. State Regulations
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the PorterCologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
 The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected  All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
 The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-7
the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

NON-WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits taking of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-8
This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.

A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.

Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.

Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-9
Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit the take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes the take of the fully protected species.

CDFW Special Animals List
Special-status wildlife species are those species included on the CDFW “Special Animals” list (CDFW 2023). “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on this list generally fall into one or more of the following categories:
 Officially listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA;  State or federal candidate for possible listing;
 Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380;
 Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern;  Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring;  Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon’s range but are threatened with extirpation in California.

Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against taking, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake" without first notifying the CDFW of that activity.

Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory program under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-10
jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
 The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
 Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 Include the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM
 CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
 Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
 A stream may flow perennially or episodically
 A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years)  Width of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators  A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form)  Features such as braided channels, low-flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-11
 Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in various environments. The importance of each factor may be weighed based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A potentially significant impact might occur under the following thresholds and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EA.

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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service
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
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 policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-12
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Threshold 2: 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
Threshold 3: 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
Threshold 4: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Threshold 5: 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 BIO-1 THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Development would be prioritized on infill sites in urbanized areas of the City. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed project would be primarily concentrated on underutilized sites that have been previously developed and disturbed.

Nesting Birds and Raptors
Nesting birds and raptors have the potential to nest in shrubs, trees, buildings, and on bare ground throughout and near the Opportunity Sites. Potential impacts to nesting birds could occur if active nests are located on a project site and/or in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Direct impacts from construction activities may result from ground disturbance, building demolition, and/or removal of shrubs or trees. These impacts could lead to individual injury, mortality and/or disruption of normal adult behaviors resulting in the abandonment or harm to eggs and nestlings.

Nesting bird species are protected by the CFGC sections 3503 and 3503.5, and the MBTA. Impacts to nesting birds and raptors would be considered significant without mitigation. Where removal of buildings, trees, and/or vegetation is proposed, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant by providing for nesting bird avoidance.

Special Status Bats
Special status bat species may forage and roost in the mature trees, abandon buildings, or under bridges. Three (3) special status bat species have very low potential to occur in the Study Area, such species include the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). Potential impacts to bats could occur if roosting bats are located on a project site and/or in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Direct impacts from construction activities may result from demolition of buildings or removal of trees.

Impacts to special-status bat species would be considered significant without mitigation. However, implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated by requiring preconstruction bat surveys prior to building demolition or tree removal.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-13
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl typically inhabit abandon squirrel, kit fox, or badger burrows but may also use manmade structures such as cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath abandon buildings, pipes, or culverts. The Study Area is likely to contain a range of features suitable for shelter and possibly nesting by burrowing owls. The construction of new housing units could impact the species if they are present within or adjacent to work areas. Ground disturbing, building demolition, and/or debris removal activities could result in nest disturbance, injury, or fatality.

Impacts to burrowing owls would be considered significant without mitigation. However, implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated by requiring preconstruction surveys and implementation of other avoidance measures.

Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
There are no sensitive natural communities or critical habitats in Huntington Park. Thus, no impact is expected to occur.

Wildlife Movement
The developed land cover in the Study Area limits wildlife movement to opportunistic, urban adapted species. Such species utilize roads, train tracks, and open landscaped spaces for movement.

Overall, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with these linear infrastructure features and as such there will be no significant impact to movements by urban adapted species through the Study Area. Thus, no impact is expected to occur.

Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances
Huntington Park Municipal Code Title 7, Chapter 5, Steet Trees, outlines local policies and ordinances relating to the management of decorative trees, shrubs, and plants. The policy states that no person shall remove, or trim trees planted or overhanging on public property without first obtaining a permit from the Director of Field Services and or duly authorized designee. The director shall have authority to impose any condition on approval of such permit as deemed necessary to fulfill the purposes of the tree ordinance. The proposed project may require the removal or trimming of public trees. Prior to the removal or trimming of trees, an assessment of their qualification as a public tree will be made and any required tree removal permits will be obtained.

Thus, no impact is expected to occur.

Habitat Conservation Plans
Huntington Park does not contain a Habitat Conservation Plan. The nearest significant ecological area as designated by the County of Los Angeles is Griffith Park approximately six (6) miles north.

There is no habitat connectivity between Griffith Park and Huntington Park Thus, no impact is expected to occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Nesting Birds and Raptors
 To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status bird species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, activities related to project construction, including but not limited to, vegetation removal, City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-14
ground disturbance, and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31). If construction at a site must be initiated during the nesting season, vegetation and/or tree removal should be planned to occur outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14) and a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a biologist qualified to perform nesting bird surveys and monitoring of avian species known to occur in Los Angeles County, no more than three days prior to initiation of construction activities. If the proposed project is phased or construction activities stop for more than one (1) week during the nest season, a subsequent pre-construction nesting bird and raptor survey will be required no more than three days prior to resuming construction. The nesting bird preconstruction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project disturbance areas and an additional 100-foot buffer surrounding the project disturbance areas. If no nests or an inactive avian nest is found, construction may proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 50- to 200-foot buffer for common nesting birds around the active nest, as determined by a qualified biologist.

For listed species and raptor species, this buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet or as determined by a biologist to be suitable for protection of the nest.  Inaccessible areas, such as areas located high up in trees or private properties, shall be surveyed from afar using binoculars. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in Los Angeles County. If nests are found, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist and demarcated with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. Effective buffer distances are highly variable and based on specific project stage, bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and the tolerance of a particular bird pair. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending on the species of nesting bird found, proposed work activities, and the biologist’s observations. Copies of the nesting birds and raptors survey results shall be submitted to the City. If no nesting birds are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions would be necessary.

MM BIO-2 Bat Pre-Construction Survey
 To avoid disturbance of special-status bat species during removal of trees, buildings, or other suitable roost structures, a preconstruction roosting bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities that will remove trees and/or structures. A passive acoustic survey shall identify the species using the area for day/night roosting.
 If special-status roosting bats are present and their roost will be impacted, a qualified bat biologist shall prepare a plan to identify the proper exclusionary methods, which may include the installation of bat deterrent devices, to passively exclude roosting bats from any structures in the work areas. Implementation of proper exclusionary methods shall be overseen by the bat biologist. If it is determined that an active maternity roost is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (approximately March through September). If it is determined to not be an active maternity roost, the tree or structure may be removed under the guidance of a qualified bat biologist. Copies of the roosting bat survey results shall be submitted to the City.
 Removal of mature trees shall occur as close to sunset as feasible to allow potential roosting bats to escape during their natural emergence times.
 For trees determined by the bat biologist to be highly suitable roost sites, removals shall be monitored by a qualified biologist and shall occur by pushing down the entire tree (without Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-15
trimming or limb removal) using heavy equipment and leaving the felled tree on the ground untrimmed and undisturbed for a period of at least 24 hours.

MM BIO-3 Burrowing Owl
 No less than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing construction activities (vegetation clearance, grading, building demolition), a qualified biologist (i.e., a wildlife biologist with previous burrowing owl survey experience) shall conduct pre-construction take avoidance surveys on and within 200 meters (656 feet) of the construction zone to identify occupied breeding or wintering burrowing owl burrows. The take avoidance burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 Staff Report; CDFG 2012) and shall consist of walking parallel transects and noting any burrows with fresh burrowing owl sign or presence of burrowing owls. Copies of the burrowing owl survey results shall be submitted to the City.  If burrowing owls are detected on site, no ground-disturbing activities shall be permitted within 200 meters (656 feet) of an occupied burrow during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), unless otherwise determined advisable by a qualified biologist and the City.

During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), ground-disturbing work can proceed near active burrows as long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters (165 feet) from the burrow. Depending on the level of disturbance, a smaller buffer may be established in coordination with a qualified biologist and the City.  If avoidance of active burrows is infeasible during the nonbreeding season, then, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping, a qualified biologist shall implement a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). Passive relocation consists of excluding burrowing owls from occupied burrows and providing suitable artificial burrows nearby for the excluded burrowing owls. A burrowing owl monitoring and mitigation plan will be prepared that outlines how passive relocation would occur and where the replacement burrows would be constructed. It would also outline the monitoring and maintenance requirements for the artificial burrows.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, bats, and burrowing owls to a less than significant level by ensuring necessary steps are taken to avoid or lessen any potential impacts.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
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 areas surrounding the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites, which includes most of the City of Huntington Park.

Cumulative development in the Study Area may contribute to the loss of habitat for special-status species; contribute to the decline of special-status species; cause further fragmentation of habitat and isolation of populations; and decrease movement opportunities. Together, cumulative projects City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-16
(both development facilitated by the project and full buildout of the City General Plan) cover a substantial area, primarily within or along the edges of previously developed areas. Cumulative impacts to biological resources would be potentially significant.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, all of the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for development. As the proposed project would not increase the likelihood for development that could affect species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, no impact would occur and therefore the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to sensitive or special-status species.

Similarly, relevant policies and regulations would apply to development in Huntington Park and provide the same level of protection as under existing conditions. The proposed project would not increase the likelihood for development that could affect riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to these resources.

The proposed project would not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, as discussed under Impact BIO-1.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with tree protection ordinances and requirements, as discussed under Impact BIO-1. Lastly, as discussed under Impact BIO-1, there are no HCPs or NCCPs applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, impacts to birds, bats, and burrowing owls would be reduced and the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to these resources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.3-17
4 References
Bibliography
City of Huntington Park. 1991. General Plan. Available at:
https://www.hpca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/407/HP-General-Plan?bidId=. Accessed March 2023.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.3-18
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-1

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s potential impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources, including historical and archeological resources as well as human remains.

4.4.1 Setting
This section provides background information pertaining to the cultural context of the project within the City of Huntington Park, in Los Angeles County. The section places the project in a broader cultural environment throughout history and provides an overview of regional indigenous history, local ethnography, and post-contact history.

4.4.1.1 Indigenous History
The project site is located in what is generally described as the Northern Bight archaeological region, one of eight organizational divisions of California designated by Jones and Klar (2007). The California Bight is bounded by the southern California coastline and encompasses the previously designated Southern Coast archaeological region described by Moratto (1984). The Northern Bight archaeological region primarily includes the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and portions of Los Angeles, extending from the coastline at Vandenberg Air Force Base inland to the Cuyama River Valley and south to the Santa Monica Mountains and the Los Angeles Basin. Following Glassow et al. (2007), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Northern Bight is generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca.10,000 – 7000 before common era [BCE]), Millingstone Horizon (7000 – 5000 BCE), Early Period (5000 BCE – 2000 BCE), Middle Period (2000 BCE – 1 common era [CE]), Middle-Late Transition Period (1 – 1000 CE), and Late (1000 CE – Historic Contact). These periods are discussed in further detail below.

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 – 7000 BCE)
The Paleo-Indian Period defines the earliest human occupation of the Northern Bight and describes the cultural trends and subsistence strategies of prehistoric populations from approximately 10,000 to 7000 Before Christian Era (BCE) (Glassow et al. 2007). The Paleo-Indian Period in North America is largely recognized by projectile points associated with extinct large mammal remains, such as mammoth, bison, and dire wolves in the Southwest and Plains regions (Erlandson et al. 2007; Huckell 1996). These projectile points have been classified as the Clovis style, which exhibit a lanceolate shape with a flute initiated from the base that extends as far as the midline (Justice 2002).

The earliest accepted dates for human occupation in California were recovered from archaeological sites on two of the Northern Channel Islands, located off the southern coast of Santa Barbara County. Over 90 paleocoastal sites dating between 13,000 to 8200 years before present (BP) have been documented in the Northern Channel Islands (McLaren et al. 2019). Archaeological deposits from the Daisy Cave site on San Miguel Island establishes the presence of people in this area approximately 10,000 BP (Erlandson 1991; Erlandson et al. 2007), and the Arlington Springs Woman (CASRI-173) has a calibrated date approximately 11,000 BP derived from the human remains and rodent bones recovered from within the same deposits on Santa Rosa Island (Erlandson et al. 2007; Glassow et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2002).

Recent data from Paleo-Indian shell middens, bone middens, lithic scatters, and quarry workshops on the Channel Islands indicate that the area supported substantial human populations during later City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-2
Paleocoastal times (McLaren et al. 2019). Data from the last 20 years also suggests that the economy was a diverse mixture of hunting, fishing, and gathering, with a major emphasis on aquatic resources in many coastal areas (e.g., Jones and Ferneau 2002; Erlandson et al. 2007). Shellfish in particular were heavily relied on, with varying intensities of reliance on fish, marine mammals, seabirds, and waterfowl (McLaren et al. 2019). Archaeological deposits at the Daisy Cave site yielded an assemblage of “the oldest known fishhooks in the Americas” (Erlandson et al. 2007: 57). Shell middens identified on the mainland of California have yielded dates from 8000 to 7000 BCE (Erlandson et al. 2007).

Assemblages on the Channel Islands include chipped-stone bifaces, cores and flake tools, groundstone artifacts, bone gorges, Olivella shell beads, woven sea grass cordage, and red ochre. While no fluted points have been found on the Channel Islands, a few have been found along California’s mainland coast (McLaren et al. 2019). One fluted projectile point fragment was recovered from site CA-SBA-1951 on the Santa Barbara Channel coastal plain (Erlandson 1994:44; Erlandson et al. 1987).

Millingstone Horizon (7000 – 5000 BCE)
Originally identified in 1929, the Millingstone Horizon, as described by Wallace (1955, 1978), is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting plant resources, such as seeds and nuts, suggested by the appearance and abundance of well-made milling (ground stone) implements, particularly in archaeological sites along the coast of California. It is generally accepted that human occupation of California during the Paleo-Indian period originated from small, dispersed occupations. Archaeological sites dating to the Millingstone Horizon, however, indicate a population increase (Glassow et al. 2007).

Wallace (1955, 1978) and Warren (1968) identify ground stone implements including Millingstones (e.g., metates, milling slabs) and hand stones (e.g., manos, mullers). Millingstones occur in high frequencies for the first time in the archaeological record of the Central Coast region and become even more prevalent near the end of the Millingstone Horizon. The Millingstone Horizon is named for the dominance of milling implements and is generally associated with the horizontal motion of grinding small seeds and nuts (Glassow et al. 2007). Excavations at the Tank Site (CA-LAN-1) in Topanga Canyon from 1947 to 1948 (Treganza and Bierman 1958) confirmed the presence of a significant number of milling implements that correspond with the Millingstone Horizon.

Flaked stone assemblages, which include crude core and cobble-core tools, flake tools, large sidenotched projectile points, and pitted stones (Glassow et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2007), and shell middens in coastal sites suggest that people during this period practiced a mixed food procurement strategy. Faunal remains identified at Millingstone sites point to broad-spectrum hunting and gathering of shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals, though large faunal assemblages are uncommon.

This mixed food procurement strategy demonstrates adaptation to regional and local environments.

Along the Central Coast, Millingstone period sites are most common on terraces and knolls, typically set back from the current coastline (Erlandson 1994:46). However, 40 sites dating to this period have been identified in various settings, including rocky coasts, estuaries, and nearshore interior valleys (Glassow et al. 2007). The larger sites usually contain extensive midden deposits, possible subterranean house pits, and cemeteries. Most of these sites probably reflect intermittent use over many years of local cultural habitation and resource exploitation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-3
Early Period (5000 BCE – 2000 BCE)
The Early Period of the Northern Bight is marked by a lower frequency of radiocarbon dated archaeological sites as well as changes in artifact forms. Differences in artifact forms, and particularly in ground stone implements, likely represent changes in subsistence (Glassow et al. 2007). The material culture recovered from Early Period sites within the Central Coast region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources as well as the incorporation of “newly important food resources” found in specific habitats (Glassow et al. 2007:197). In addition to the use of metates and manos, prehistoric populations began to use mortars and pestles, such as those recovered from the Sweetwater Mesa (CA-LAN-267) and Aerophysics (CA-SBA-53) sites (Glassow et al. 2007).

Artifact assemblages recovered from Early Period sites also include bipointed bone gorge hooks used for fishing, Olivella beads, bone tools, and pendants made from talc schist. Square abalone shell (Haliotis spp.) beads have been found in Monterey Bay (Jones and Waugh 1997:122). The frequency of projectile points in Early Period assemblages also increased, while the style began to change from lanceolate forms to side-notched forms (Glassow et al. 2007). The projectile point trend has become apparent at numerous sites along the California coast as well as a few inland sites (e.g., CA-SBA-210 and CA-SBA-530). In many cases, manifestations of this trend are associated with the establishment of new and larger settlements, such as at the Aerophysics site (Glassow et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2007).

Middle Period (2000 BCE – 1 CE)
The remains of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals are increasingly abundant and diverse in archaeological deposits along the coast during the Middle Period, suggesting a pronounced trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources as well as the development of socioeconomic and political complexity in prehistoric populations (Glassow et al. 2007). Shell fishhooks were introduced, and projectile points changed from side-notched dart points to contracting stem styles.

Flaked stone tools used for hunting and processing—such as large side-notched, stemmed, lanceolate or leaf-shaped projectile points, large knives, edge modified flakes, and drill-like implements—occurred in archaeological deposits in higher frequencies and are more morphologically diversified during the Middle Period. Bone tools, including awls, are more numerous than in the preceding period, and the use of asphaltum adhesive became common.

Circular fish hooks that date from between 1000 and 500 B.C., compound bone fish hooks that date between A.D. 300 and 900, notched stone sinkers, and the tule reed or balsa raft, indicative of major developments in maritime technology, became common during this period (Arnold 1995; Glassow et al. 2007; Jones and Klar 2005:466; King 1990:87–88).

Populations continued to follow a seasonal settlement pattern until the end of the Middle Period; large, permanently occupied settlements with formal architecture, particularly in coastal areas, appear to have been the norm by the end of the Middle Period (Glassow et al. 2007). Prehistoric populations began to bury the deceased in formal cemeteries with artifacts that may represent changes in ideology and the development of ritual practices (Glassow et al. 2007).

Middle-Late Transition Period (1 CE – 1000 CE)
The Middle-Late Transition period is marked by major changes in settlement patterns, diet, and interregional exchange. Prehistoric populations continued to occupy more permanent settlements, City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-4
with the continued use of formal cemeteries and the burial of goods with the deceased. The manufacture of the plank canoe, or tomol, allowed prehistoric populations to catch larger fish that occupied deeper sea waters (Glassow et al. 2007). Following the introduction of the plank canoe, groups began to use harpoons. The plank canoe appears to have influenced “commerce between the mainland coast and the Channel Islands” (Glassow et al. 2007:204). Middle-Late Transition Period sites indicate that populations replaced atlatl (dart) technologies with the bow and arrow, which required smaller projectile points. Projectile points diagnostic of both the Middle and Late periods are found within the Central Coast region (Jones and Ferneau 2002:217). These projectile points include large, contracting-stemmed types typical of the Middle Period, as well as small, leafshaped Late Period projectile points, which likely reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow.

Late Period (1,000 CE – Historic Contact)
Late Period sites are distinguished by small, finely worked projectile points and temporally diagnostic shell beads. Although shell beads were typical of coastal sites, trade brought many of these maritime artifacts to inland locations, especially during the latter part of the Late Period.

Small, finely worked projectile points are typically associated with bow and arrow technology, which is believed to have been introduced to the area by the Takic migration from the deserts into southern California. Common artifacts identified at Late Period sites include bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, lipped and cupped Olivella shell beads, and steatite disk beads.

The presence of beads and bead drills suggest that low-level bead production was widespread throughout the Central Coast region (Glassow et al. 2007). Unlike the large Middle period shell middens, Late Period sites are more frequently single-component deposits with evidence for only one period of occupation or use. There are also more inland sites, with fewer and less visible sites along the Pacific shore during the Late Period.

4.4.1.2 Ethnographic Background
The project area lies in the traditional territory of the Tongva/Gabrieleño. The name “Gabrieleño” denotes those people, who were administered by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission. It includes people from the Gabrieleño area proper, as well as other social groups nearby (Kroeber 1925, Plate 57, Bean and Smith 1978: 538). The term Gabrieleño was imposed upon the Tribe by Spanish Missionaries. Thus, descendants have chosen to use their original name, Tongva (Welch 2006). This term is used in the remainder of this section to refer to the pre-contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants. Archaeological evidence points to the Tongva arriving in the Los Angeles Basin sometime around 500 BCE, and the Tongva note their presence in the area going back thousands of years (Villa 2017). Today, the Tongva people are active in protecting their Tribal cultural resources in the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands: present-day San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina.

The Tongva language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, which can be traced to the Great Basin region (Mithun 2001). This language family includes dialects spoken by the nearby Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Tataviam to the northwest. Yet, it is considerably different from the Chumash people living to the northwest and the Diegueño people (including the Ipai, Tipai, and Kumeyaay) to the south.

The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast. The total tribal population is estimated to have been at least 5,000 in 1770 (Bean and Smith 1978: 540), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a number closer to 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Political organization followed a patrilocal and patrilineal pattern. Typically, Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-5
the oldest son would lead a family. Chieftainship was also passed down patrilineally. A Chari, or chief of a village or political grouping, was separate from religious leadership (King 2011).

At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and taught people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925: 637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups as Christian missions were being built. Elements of Chinigchinich beliefs suggest it was a syncretic mixture of Christianity and native religious practices (McCawley 1996: 143–144).

Houses constructed by the Tongva were large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles, thatched with tule and sheltered up to 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and probable communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996: 27).

The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the Tribe exploited the mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, including riparian and estuarine areas, as well as open and rocky coastal ecological niches. Like most Native Californians, acorns were the staple food. By the time of the early Intermediate Period, acorn processing was an established industry. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Freshwater and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, insects, and large and small mammals were also consumed (Kroeber 1925: 631–632, Bean and Smith 1978: 546, McCawley 1996: 119–123, 128–131).

The Tongva used a wide variety of tools and implements to gather food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, digging sticks, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. The Tongva made oceangoing plank canoes (known as a ti’at) capable of holding six to 14 people and used for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Tule reed canoes were employed for near-shore fishing (McCawley 1996: 117–127). Tongva people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Kroeber 1925: 629, McCawley 1996: 129–138).

Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated. Inhumation was more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation was more predominate on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942, McCawley 1996: 157). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the Post-Contact Period (McCawley 1996: 157).

Currently, five tribes listed by the Native American Heritage Commission are affiliated with Tongva ancestry. Today, more than 2,500 Tongva descendants are estimated to live in the Los Angeles area.

Tongva tribes are active in the Los Angeles community revitalizing and sharing their culture. While the tribes still struggle to gain federal recognition, California passed Joint Resolution No. 96 in 1994, which granted the Gabrielino-Tongva Nation statewide recognition as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles Basin (Welch 2006).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-6

4.4.1.3 Post-Contact History
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
Spanish explorers undertook sailing expeditions along the coast of California between the mid1500s and mid-1700s. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition in 1542 to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885; Gumprecht 1999).

By the 18th century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s post-contact history, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769. Franciscan Father Junípero Serra also founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá that same year, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823 (Kyle 2003).

The mission and presidios of Spanish California relied extensively on the labor of local indigenous peoples. Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities, San José and Los Angeles (Kyle 2003; McIntosh 2020).

Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914). The area comprising present-day Huntington Park fell within Rancho San Antonio, granted to Antonio María Lugo in 1810. The rancho remained in the hands of Lugo’s heirs through the Mexica Period into California’s American era (Kyle 2003).

Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-7
Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Gutierrez and Orsi 1998).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Although well-connected Mexican families were initially the most likely recipients of these land grants, the Mexican government increasingly enticed immigrants, often American or British, to settle Alta California’s ranchos (Kyle 2003).

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the indigenous population, who had no associated immunities.

American Period (1848 – Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. During the first year of the war, John C.

Fremont traveled from Monterey to Los Angeles with reinforcements for Commodore Stockton and evaded Mexican soldiers in Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Pass by taking the route over the San Marcos grade instead (Kyle 2003). The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as United States territories (Waugh 2003). Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the southern California economy through 1850s. The discovery of gold in the northern part of the state led to the Gold Rush beginning in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods.

During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom.

A severe drought in the 1860s decimated cattle herds and drastically affected rancheros’ source of income. In addition, property boundaries that were loosely established during the Mexican era led to disputes with new incoming settlers, problems with squatters, and lawsuits. Rancheros often were encumbered by debt and the cost of legal fees to defend their property. As a result, much of the rancho lands were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944).

Local History
Huntington Park is located in the former Spanish-era Rancho San Antonio, a nearly 30,000-acre land grant made in 1810 to Don Antonio Maria Lugo. The vast rancho originally included portions of the modern-day cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Lynwood, South Gate, and Vernon, as well as an unincorporated section of East Los Angeles (Kinsey 2007; Kyle 200). Many of the region’s ranchos were broken up in the second half of the nineteenth century. By 1901, land developers A.L. Burbank and E.V. Baker controlled a 100-acre tract of land called the Sunrise Tract, City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-8
which was subdivided and re-named La Park. The following year, local leaders renamed the community Huntington Park. This move, along with a promise to grant land for a rail right-of-way to industrialist Henry Huntington, convinced Huntington to extend his wide-reaching Pacific Electric Railway line to the new development, thereby helping attract residents and businesses and ensuring the areas continued success (City of Huntington Park 2022).

Huntington Park was incorporated in 1906 with a population of 526 (City of Huntington Park 2022).

The City benefited from the rapid, widespread industrialization and population growth throughout the region. In addition, in an approach that presaged later zoning practices, the adjacent area of southeastern Los Angeles was reserved for industrial development in the early twentieth century.

Initially, these clusters, including neighboring Vernon, hosted oil refining and other local industries.

Starting in the 1920s, eastern manufacturers increasingly looked to the Los Angeles area as a location for West Coast branch factories (Nicolaides 1999; Fogelson 1967). For example, the establishment of Vernon’s Studebaker Assembly Plant in 1936, represented the region’s emergence as a major center for auto production, a status Los Angeles retained into the 1960s (Baker 1991).

By 1920, Huntington Park had grown into a bedroom community of just over 4,500 residents (Viehe 1991). During the 1920s, the City would expand fivefold, to over 24,000 residents by 1930. During this era (as now), Pacific Boulevard served as the City’s main retail corridor. By 1940, Huntington Park was extensively developed, with a population consisting primarily of blue-collar, service, and farm laborers (Nicolaides 1999).

Through the years, the community grew increasingly diverse, as immigration to the region continued apace, with new residents drawn by a diverse industrial sector. With the advent of World War II, immigration would continue, both international and interstate, with many new residents drawn by war-time manufacturing in the region. In the following decades the local manufacturing, aerospace, and defense industries declined, new residential tracts continued to spread outward, drawing residents further away (Kinsey 2007). In 2020, the population of Huntington Park was approximately 54,000 and approximately 97 percent of residents were of Hispanic or Latino descent in the most recent federal census (United States Census Bureau 2022).

4.4.1.4 Existing Conditions
This section analyzes the project’s existing conditions related to cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources as well as human remains. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a review of historical resources inventories and a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

On October 3, 2022, the NAHC responded to the SLF request, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative.

Background research was conducted to identify known and potential historical resources within or immediately adjacent to Opportunity Sites, which have been identified as potential locations for housing development under the proposed project. Known historical resources include properties that have been listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and Huntington Park Historic Register (HPHR), while potential historical resources include those that have been recommended eligible for such designation through formal evaluation. Resources in both categories qualify as historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Background research included a review of the following sources: the NRHP, HPHR, Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory, and the OHP web page listing known historical resources Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-9
throughout Los Angeles County. As a result of the review, no known or potential historical resources were identified within the Opportunity Sites considered for this project. However, two previously known historical resources were identified immediately adjacent to some Opportunity Sites. Further information about the location and historical resources eligibility status of the resources is detailed in Table 4.4-1.

Table 4.4-1 Known and Potential Historical Resources Located Adjacent to Opportunity Sites
Name Address Proximity to Opportunity Site Eligibility Status Warner Brothers Theater 6710 Pacific Boulevard Adjacent to 6322-017-005, 6322-017-904, 6322-017-910,
6322-017-901, and 6322-017-
007
Determined eligible for
the NRHP and
automatically listed in
the CRHR in 1991; listed
in the HPHR
Fox West Coast California
Theater
6524 Pacific Boulevard Adjacent to 6322-004-902 Determined eligible for the NRHP and
automatically listed in
the CRHR in 1991
Sources: BERD; HPHR

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, 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.

Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-10
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies to determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA.

Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-11
type or the best available example of its type; or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[b][2][A]).

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a], [b]).

Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates an EIR shall describe feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts. In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project. Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC §§5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Further, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-12
Properties are eligible for listing in the CRHR if they meet one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past.

Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 52 OF 2014
As of July 1, 2015, AB 52 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources”. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes, “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the CEQA lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and that meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
2) 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 these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process with California Native American tribes that must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” California Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

California Health and Safety Code §7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code 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 if 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.

California Public Resources Code §5097.98
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 Health and Safety Code §7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant or “MLD”) it believes to be Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-13
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.

California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005); “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
 Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
 and Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995). c. Local Regulations
Huntington Park Historic Preservation Ordinance
In 2006 the City of Huntington Park adopted a historic preservation ordinance (Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 18) which allowed for the designation of significant public or semi-public interior spaces and signage, in addition to landmarks and historic districts. The City maintains a small list of historic resources that includes single-family homes, civic structures and one historic district. The ordinance also includes provisions for local designation criteria for Historic Resources, Historic Signs, and Historic Districts.

According to the historic preservation ordinance a Historic Resource is a building, structure, site, object, landscape, sign, or contributing member to a Historic District that is significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology or culture and is designated by the City according to the following criteria:

Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City, Region, State or Nation.

Associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City, Region, State or Nation.

Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a Historic Resource property type, period, architectural style or method of construction, or that is a representation of the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is significant to the City, Region, State or Nation, or that possesses high artistic values that are of City, Regional, State-wide or National significance.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-14
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the City, Region, State or Nation.

According to the historic preservation ordinance, a Historic Sign shall include all signs designated historically significant by the Historic Preservation Commission and such sign that meets the criteria described in Section 9-3.1806(A)(3). All other regulations described in Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 12 of this Code shall also apply.

According to the historic preservation ordinance, a Historic District is an area that is geographically defined as possessing a concentration of Historic Resources or a thematically related grouping of properties which contribute to each other and is designated by the City according to the procedures set forth by the NRHP Bulletin #21: “Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties” and the following criteria:

The grouping of properties [is] unified by planned or physical development or a significant and distinguishable entity of Citywide importance.

The components of the properties may lack individual distinction but are important as a collection representing one or more of a defined historic, cultural, development and/or architectural context(s).

Under Section 9-3.1811, proposed alterations to a historical resource designated on the HPHR are subject to review and require a Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect, as approved by the Community Development Director or Historic Preservation Commissioner, respectively. A Certificate of No Effect may be issued if is determined proposed work involving a locally designated historical resource would not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the historic character of the subject property or the district in which it is located. If the proposed work does not meet the requirements of a Certificate of No Effect, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required.

Approval is granted if it is determined the design and materials of the proposed work conform to appropriate design guidelines and do not undermine the elements of the historical resources that contribute to its historic, architectural, cultural, technological and/or educational significance, among other requirements.

Under Section 9-3.1812, proposed work that would involve the demolition of a locally designated historical resource is subject to the approval of a Certificate of Demolition. Relevant provisions require the applicant and/or City to pursue alternatives to demolition, including the reuse or relocation of the property.

City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. The General Plan lists several land use goals, policies, and actions related to cultural and historical resources as part of the Land Use and Urban Design Elements. The following goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project (Huntington Park 1991):

LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element describes existing land use patterns and provides the physical framework for land use and development in the City. The Land Use Element also contains policies to improve the City’s visual quality and livability, including its compatibility between neighborhoods, mixed-use Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-15
areas, commercial areas, and industrial areas. It includes specific goals and policies which encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of historical and cultural resources. describes the economic context and sets out goals and policies to stimulate development, maintain fiscal health, and support other efforts to enhance the City’s economy (Huntington Park 1991).

URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT
The Urban Design Element further builds on the Land Use Element, focusing on the quality and character of public areas and private development in the City. The Urban Design Element describes the goals, policies, and design concepts regarding the preservation and improvement of historical resources within the City (Huntington Park 1991).

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
If a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §Section 15064.5[b]). Impacts would be significant if the project would:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Threshold 1 broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, analysis under Threshold 1 has been limited to built environment resources. Archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 and those that may be considered unique archaeological resources pursuant to Section 21083.2, are considered under Threshold 2.

Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation.

Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district.

The State Legislature, in enacting the CRHR, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §Section 150645[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §Section 150645[b][1]).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-16
The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register … local register of historic resources… or its identification in an historic resources survey.” As such, the test for determining whether or not the project will have a significant impact on identified historical resources is whether it will materially impair physical integrity of the historic resource such that it could no longer be listed in the CRHR or a local landmark program.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON A HISTORIC RESOURCE IF DEVELOPMENT BY THE PROJECT WOULD CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT RESOURCE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

To evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on historical resources, the proposed activities of the project were analyzed according to known and potentially eligible resources. This analysis was completed in accordance with the provisions and requirements of applicable federal and state laws and regulations governing the identification and management of cultural resources.

To determine whether development facilitated by the proposed project had the potential to impact known historical resources, the locations of all known historical resources and Opportunity Sites were reviewed to determine whether any potential development sites contained known historical resources. In addition, all Opportunity Sites listed in the proposed project inventory were also reviewed using information from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor and historical aerial imagery to determine if they meet the minimum age requirement for historical resources, generally considered to be 45 years (NETROnline 2022). Because specific building/property ages were not available in some cases, the historical aerial imagery analysis can determine if any Opportunity Site contains buildings and/or structures that meet the minimum age requirement for historical resources.

There are no known or potential historical resources located on any Opportunity Site, however, there are two known historical resources listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the NRHP, CRHR, or HPHR located immediately adjacent to one or more Opportunity Sites. Development facilitated by the proposed project would not directly affect either of these historical resources but could cause indirect effects through the introduction of new visual elements in their respective settings. Because the areas surrounding both known historical resources are densely urbanized and have been subject to periodic redevelopment, any new development facilitated by the proposed project would be generally consistent with existing conditions in an urbanized area and unlikely to alter the existing setting of the area, resulting in impacts to historical resources. As a result, development under the proposed project would not cause significant impacts to these two known historical resources.

In addition, a review of assessor data historical aerial imagery identified 79 Opportunity Sites that contain buildings currently meet the 45-year age threshold for consideration as a historical resource or will meet this threshold over the life of the proposed project (2021-2029). As such these sites Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-17
may contain yet-unidentified historical resources. An inventory of Opportunity Sites documenting the presence of buildings that meet, or will meet, the age threshold for consideration as historical resources is included in Appendix F, Cultural Resources Site Inventory.

The City of Huntington Park has adopted policies and regulations to minimize impacts to historical resources. Urban Design Element Policies 7.1 and 7.3 of the City of Huntington Park General Plan includes measures that generally promote the recognition and protection of historical resources.

Land Use Element Policy 3.4 encourages the restoration and rehabilitation of properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, while Urban Design Element Policy 7.2 generally provides for the preservation of important historical resources through the development and adoption of the City’s historic preservation ordinance. The City’s historic preservation ordinance, City of Huntington Park Municipal Code, Title 9 Chapter 3, Article 18, provides procedures for the local designation of historic properties and mitigation of development-related impacts to locally designated properties through reuse and relocation. However, the mitigative elements of the ordinance apply only to historical resources listed on the HPHR and do not explicitly protect those listed on the NRHP or CRHR. Although these General Plan policies and historic preservation ordinance measures provide certain protections for historical resources, development facilitated by the proposed project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in a historical resource.

Although the proposed project does not propose the demolition, destruction, removal, or alteration of any property, it possible that demolition, destruction, removal, or alteration of historical resources would occur from development facilitated by the proposed project. As addressed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, prior to any development activity facilitated by the proposed project that would result in the alteration, demolition, or removal of a building or structure 45 or more years of age, a project would be required to have a qualified historian or architectural historian to record and evaluate the building or structure to determine if it qualifies as a historical resource eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or HPHR. Implementation of MM CUL-1 and applicable policies of the General Plan and City of Huntington Park Municipal Code will reduce most potential impacts to historical resources to a less-than-significant level. However, if demolition or other alterations causing material impairment of a historical resource’s significance would occur as a result of the proposed project, impacts to would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Historical Built Environment
A historical resources evaluation shall be prepared for any development under the proposed project involving a property containing buildings, structures, or other built environment features that are 45 years of age or older. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history as defined in 36 CFR Part 61. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed project area. All built environment features 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms and attached to a report that shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-18
If historical resources are identified within the project area of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated in a manner consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). Pursuant to CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)).

Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-like report. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research.

The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS, and copies shall be filed with the City of Huntington Park, Department Community Development, Planning and Zoning Division prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Significance After Mitigation
Compliance with Land Use and Community Development Element Policy 20 and Resource Management Element Policy 13 of the City of Huntington Park General Plan, Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 18 of the Huntington Park Municipal Code, and MM CUL-1 would reduce most potential impacts to historical resources to a less than significant levels. However, if development requires the demolition or alteration of a historical resource which is not consistent with the Standards, those impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT IDENTIFIED AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS

WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION, Since it is known that prehistoric populations were present in Huntington Park and the surrounding areas, the potential to encounter unidentified resources in the City and on residential Opportunity Sites is considered moderate. Undeveloped properties in the proposed project inventory have a higher probability of containing previously unidentified archaeological resources given the probable lack of previous ground-disturbing activities on those properties. Additionally, ground-disturbance into undisturbed soils on any proposed project property could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historic-period resources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-19
Further, human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. While no known burial sites have been identified in the City, the possibility of encountering human remains in undeveloped areas is always extant. Therefore, excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which could include Native American burial sites.

Existing regulations within Section 5097 of the California PRC address the treatment for unanticipated human remains. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains, protecting them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes.

Mitigation Measures
Development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with City of Huntington Park General Plan Policies. In addition, the following requirements shall apply:

CUL-2(a) Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel. The training shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find.

CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, the project applicant shall immediately cease all work activities in the immediate area (approximately 50 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983).

Construction shall not resume in the immediate area of the discovery until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the City on the significance of the resource. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA, additional work may be required. Avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible, additional mitigation will be required, such as data recovery through excavation. Should data recovery be required, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-20
contained in the archaeological resource. The City shall consult with interested Native American representatives affiliated with the area in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.

CUL-2(c) Archaeological Resources and Native American Monitors During initial ground disturbing activities related to the proposed development projects, monitoring shall be conducted under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) and a locally affiliated Native American monitor from an interested Tribe for all construction activities, in accordance with City of Huntington Park General Plan Policies. Initial ground disturbance is defined as disturbance within previously undisturbed native soils. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist determines that the construction activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources (e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed, non-native soils, or within soil formation not expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or eliminated, in consultation with the Native American monitor and the applicant.

Significance After Mitigation
Compliance the City of Huntington Park General Plan Policies, as well as Section 9-3.1801 of the Huntington Park Municipal Code, and MMs CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) has the potential to reduce possible significant impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. It should be noted, individual projects will have to determine their impact significance at the time of ground disturbing activities.

Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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)?
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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?
Impact CUL-3 and 4 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION THROUGH CONSULTATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 52 AND SB 18.

Ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects under the proposed project could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as Tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by the project construction. Given the highly developed nature of most project and rezone properties, the likelihood of encountering intact cultural or Tribal cultural resources is low to moderate.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.4-21
As part of its Tribal cultural resource identification process under AB 52 and SB 18, Huntington Park sent letters via certified mail to four Native American Tribes that had previously requested to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribes. On September 30, 2022, Chairman Andrew Salas of the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation responded that “we agree with the General Plan, proposed project. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for all future projects within this location.” The City has not received any additional requests for consultation.

The City also requested a review of the SLF by the NAHC and received a response on October 3, 2022, that the search of the SLF was negative. The NAHC requested that the City contact an additional list of contacts, and the City sent letters to this group on October 10, 2022. To date, the City has not received any responses for additional consultation under AB 52 or SB 18.

The project is part of a high-level planning document. It remains a possibility that Tribal cultural resources may be present within geographic areas affiliated with Tribal organizations. Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 and SB 18 would require Tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of any project activities which are subject to CEQA. In compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on Tribal cultural resources or traditional tribal cultural places (cultural places) would occur along with identification of appropriate project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed program, it is not possible to fully determine impacts, however, no Tribal cultural resources or cultural places were identified during consultation and no resources eligible for the CRHR or local register were identified as being impacted by the proposed program. Any future project implementation would require project-specific Tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be incorporated.

AB 52 and SB 18 consultation did not identify Tribal cultural resources or cultural places in the proposed project areas as part of this analysis. Project-specific Tribal cultural resource consultation will occur when discretionary action is required for specific projects in the City, and consultation conducted pursuant to the requirements of AB 52. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would be implemented on all undeveloped properties and properties that require grounddisturbing activities.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would address potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce impacts to Tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative setting for cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts is the city of Huntington Park. Cumulative development under the project could possibly disturb areas that may contain prehistoric and historic-period cultural resources. While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to prehistoric and historic-period cultural resources, it is anticipated that City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.4-22
potential impacts associated with individual projects would be subject to City policies and local and state regulations regarding the protection of such resources, as well as the mitigation measures for the proposed project. With compliance to existing policies and regulations, future development under the project would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources. The impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would not be considered cumulatively considerable with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation described above. Therefore, significant cumulative resource impacts would not occur.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-1

4.5 Energy
This section analyzes energy consumption due to the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with future development accommodated through Project implementation. Such impacts include non-renewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) depletion and air pollutant emissions during short-term construction and long-term operations. The physical environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity and burning of fuels have been accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality as it can adversely affect air quality and other natural resources. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity to power homes and vehicles, which creates heat. Transportation energy use relates to the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, and the availability and use of public transportation, the choice of different travel modes (auto, carpool, and public transit), and the miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of infrastructure also consume energy, as do residential land uses, typically in the form of natural gas and electricity.

The City of Huntington Park (City) is located in south central Los Angeles County, approximately six (6) miles south of downtown Los Angeles, 18 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and 1.9 miles west of the Los Angeles River. Huntington Park lies entirely within Township 2 South, Range 13 West, Section 11 San Bernardino Principal Meridian of the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey’s (USGS’) California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The proposed project is bound by the City of Vernon and the City of Los Angeles to the north, the City of Bell to the east, the City of South Gate to the south, and the unincorporated community of Walnut Park to the south and west.

Electricity/Natural Gas Services
Natural gas service to the City is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (a subsidiary of SEMPRA Energy) and electricity is provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE) Company.

Southern California Gas Company serves more than 21 million residents throughout Central and Southern California. SCE maintains overhead and underground lines in the City to serve the energy demands of local residents and businesses.

Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (Btu). Total energy usage in California was 6,923 trillion Btu’s in 2020 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of 175 million per capita. Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 12.6 percent transportation, 8.5 percent industrial, 13.1 percent commercial, and 10.2 percent residential. In California, electricity and natural gas consumption is generally by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally by transportation-related energy use (EIA, 2020). In 2018, net taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 15,589,042,965 gallons of gasoline (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration [CDTFA] 2023). The electricity consumption attributable to Los Angeles County’s residential and nonresidential land uses from 2013 through 2021 is shown in Table 4.5-1. Residential and nonresidential demand have both remained relatively constant between 2008 and 2016, with no substantial increase. The natural gas City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-2
consumption attributable to residential and nonresidential land uses in Los Angeles County from 2013 through 2021 is shown in Table 4.5-2, Residential and Nonresidential Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County. As shown in Table 4.5-2, residential and nonresidential demand have declined between 2013 and 2020 with a slight increase in nonresidential consumption from 2017- 2019.

Table 4.5-1 Residential and Nonresidential Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County
Year
Nonresidential Electricity Consumption
(million kilowatt-hours)
Residential Electricity Consumption
(million kilowatt-hours)
2021 44437.63 20937.09
2020 42736.77 22913.10
2019 46105.55 20699.47
2018 47361.08 20525.59
2017 47960.38 20671.69
2016 49095.00 20295.26
2015 49066.21 20436.65
2014 49178.07 20745.74
2013 47727.85 20614.33
Source: California Energy Consumption Data Management System, 2023 Table 4.5-2 Residential and Nonresidential Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County Year Nonresidential Natural Gas Consumption
(million therms)
Residential Natural Gas Consumption
(million therms)
2021 1743.42 1137.58
2020 1698.69 1238.00
2019 1812.59 1235.73
2018 1813.72 1107.78
2017 1840.58 1115.46
2016 1766.99 1110.87
2015 1676.34 1084.70
2014 1715.22 1078.65
2013 1743.55 1321.88
Source: California Energy Consumption Data Management System, 2023 Gasoline/Diesel Fuels
Daily automotive fuel consumption in Los Angeles County from 2013 to 2021 is shown in Table 5-3, Daily Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County. As shown in Table 5-3, automotive fuel consumption in the County has declined slightly since 2013.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-3
Table 4.5-3 Daily Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County Year Gas Consumption (million gallons)* Diesel Fuel Consumption (million gallons)* 2021 3,061 224
2020 2,770 299
2019 3,559 276
2018 3,638 253
2017 3,659 301
2016 3,577 309
2015 3,465 328
2014 3,749 267
2013 3,445 239
Source: California Energy Commission, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15), 2023. * Estimated totals
Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Health and Safety Code Section 38566 [Senate Bill (SB) 32]). Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with many alternative fuels including the following:

Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is biodegradable and cleaner-burning than petroleumbased diesel fuel. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine generally without alterations but fueling stations have been slow to make it available.

Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles directly from the power grid. The electricity grid usually provides electricity used to power vehicles, which store it in the vehicle's batteries. Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated on board the vehicle to power electric motors. Electrical charging stations are available throughout Los Angeles County.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), a part of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-4
National Energy Policy Act of 1992
The National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT92) calls for programs that promote efficiency and the use of alternative fuels. EPACT92 requires certain federal, state, and local governments and private operators to stock vehicle fleets with a percentage of light duty alternative fuel vehicles each year.

In addition, EPACT92 has financial incentives: federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. EPACT92 also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote alternative fuel vehicles.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting climate change.

Specifically, it does the following:
 Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels  Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020 – an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 USC Section 17001 et seq.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are Federal rules established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that set fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The CAFE standards generally become more stringent with time, reaching an estimated 38.3 miles per gallon for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2020 (77 Federal Register 62624 et seq. October 15, 2012 Table I1). It is, however, legally infeasible for individual municipalities to adopt more stringent fuel efficiency standards. The Clean Air Act (42 United States Code [USC] Section 7543[a]) states that “no state or any political subdivision therefore shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part.” In August 2016, the USEPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of phase two programs related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 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. The final standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.9 billion metric tons of CO2 and reduce oil consumption by up to 3.9 billion barrels Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-5
over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (77 Federal Register 62665 et seq. October 15, 2012 Table I-22).

NHSTA and USEPA finalized the rulemaking process to establish the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule would amend the existing CAFE standards such that the requirements for model years 2021 through 2026 are lowered to the 2020 standards of 43.7 miles per gallon (mpg) and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light duty trucks (83 Federal Register 42989 August 24, 2018, Table I-1 and Table I-2).

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
U.S. EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000.

A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were to be completely phased in by the end of 2015.

Energy Star Program
In 1992, USEPA introduced Energy Star© as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specification for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star© label.

In 1996, USEPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes qualifying commercial and industrial buildings, as well as homes (Energy Star 2022). b. State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the CEC. The Act established a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures.

California Energy Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the California Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The 2008 California Energy Action Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-6
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. Furthermore, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses 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. The most recent assessment, the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy and provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system (CEC 2021).

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Established in 2002 under SB 1078, and accelerated by SB 107 (2006), SB X 1-2 (2011), and SB 100 (2018), California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure 33 percent total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

SB 100 also states “that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.” The CPUC and the CEC are jointly responsible for implementing the program.

Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 350also requires doubled energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through increased efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the Pavley bill, amended Health and Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-7
Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required that the state apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the USEPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, the USEPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative, nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06, April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. EO S-06-06 also calls for the State to meet a target for the use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
 Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste  Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
 Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the State  Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR)
CCR, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The 2022 update was adopted August 11, 2021 and goes into effect January 1, 2023. Energy efficient buildings require less City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-8
electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those provided in Title 24.

Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards)
Part 6 of Title 24 contains the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for new residential and CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The most current standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards.

The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018). Under the 2019 Standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy-efficient compared to the 2016 Standards. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, and applies starting January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements, expands solar and battery storage standards, and other stricter requirements.

California Green Building Standards Code (2019), CCR Title 24, Part 11 California’s green building code, referred to as CALGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building within the State. CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. The requirements pertain to energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties, including Los Angeles County, wherein the City of Huntington Park is located. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, SCAG is required by federal law to prepare and update a long-range regional transportation plan, keep up with Clean Air Act requirements, monitor system performance, and develop SCS to achieve GHG reduction targets set by CARB.

On September 1, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted an updated Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) known as the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projects growth in employment, population, and households at the regional, county, city, town and neighborhood levels. These projections take into account economic and demographic trends, as well feedback from SCAG’s Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-9
jurisdictions. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS “Core Vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the transportation network for moving people and goods, while expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs and transit closer together and increasing investment in transit and complete streets.

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS continues efforts to better align transportation investments and land use decisions to improve mobility and reduce GHGs by bringing housing, jobs and transit closer together. SCAG has determined that the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would achieve the applicable GHG emissions reduction target for automobiles and light trucks of 19 percent per capita reduction by 2035, relative to 2005 levels, as established by CARB for the region. c. Local Regulations
City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. California Government Code Section 65583(c) requires the Housing Element to maintain internal consistency with other General Plan Elements.

The Open Space and Conservation Element includes two sections: 1) Open Space and Conservation Goals and Policies, 2) the Conservation Plan, and 3) the Open Space Plan. The Conservation Plan directs the City to conserve and protect the natural resources and energy. Requirements under Title 24 of the California State Code pertain to building insultation (such as caulking, double-glazed windows, and weather stripping), to conserve energy. The City will continue to implement these requirements and other state and federal energy conservation standards.

Goal 3.0: Conserve energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices.

Policy 3.1: Encourage innovative site planning and building designs which minimize energy consumption by taking advantage of sun/shade patterns, prevailing winds, landscaping, and building materials.

Policy 3.2: Maintain local legislation to establish, update, and implement energy performance building code requirements in accordance with State Title 24 energy regulations.

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance were developed in accordance with Appendix F and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Energy-related impacts would be significant if the proposed project would:
 Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (Threshold 4.5-1)
 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Threshold 4.5-2)
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-10
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) states that an EIR shall include “mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” The physical environmental impacts associated with the use of energy, including the generation of electricity and burning of fuels, have been accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy consumption is analyzed herein in terms of construction and operational energy.

To note, construction activities would temporarily create a higher demand for energy supplies. The extent of energy use generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project.

Operational energy demand accounts for the anticipated energy consumption during operation of the development facilitated by the project, such as fuel consumed by cars, trucks, and public transit; natural gas consumed for on-site power generation and heating building spaces; and electricity consumed for building power needs, including, but not limited to, lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact E-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE TO WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOR OPERATION. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Overall, the proposed project does not involve development of land uses or patterns that would cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary operational fuel consumption. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Future development would consume limited, slow renewable and non-renewable resources. This consumption would occur during each individual project’s construction phase and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. Future development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and persons to/from individual development sites. Construction would require the consumption of the following resources (e.g., construction supplies), which are nonrenewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable: lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed to power construction vehicles and equipment.

The resources that would be committed to future development operations would be like those that are currently consumed within the City. These would include energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel for vehicle trips), fossil fuels (i.e., oil and natural gas), and water. Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both short-term construction and long-term operations, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Future development operations would occur in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6, which sets forth Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-11
conservation practices that would limit energy consumption. However, energy requirements would, nonetheless, represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

Future development within the City would involve a commitment of nonrenewable resources associated with the construction and operation of any future development. During construction, the use of building materials (e.g., aggregate, sand, cement, steel, glass) and energy resources (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity) would be largely irreversible and irretrievable. Energy would also be consumed in the processing of building materials and for the transport of these materials and construction workers to individual work sites. Industrial and commercial land uses generally have a life expectancy that may extend up to 50 years. The resources consumed during the normal operation of these uses will be similar to those consumed by existing development. Title 24 (Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code) energy conservation standards are mandatory and will be applied to development within the added areas. Vehicles used by workers and visitors will consume motor fuel; however, these activities are part of normal industrial and commercial operations and are not considered a significant or wasteful use of resources.

In summary, future development construction and operations would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the individual developments. However, continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale of 80 opportunity sites in a regional context. Although Project implementation would result in irreversible environmental changes, such changes would not be considered significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR OBSTRUCT A STATE OR LOCAL PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described under Impact E-1, above, the project includes policies intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system and provide options for alternative transportation. In summary, the proposed project would not result in an increased reliance on fossil fuels or a decreased reliance on renewable energy sources and is consistent with applicable policies regarding energy conservation and renewable energy.

Once the project is adopted, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Huntington Park General Plan 2030 Resource Management Element, which encourages the use of renewable energy, energy conservation and energy efficiency techniques in all new building design, orientation and construction and support of alternative transportation and fuels.

As discussed in Section 4.5.2, Regulatory Setting, several State plans include energy conservation and energy efficiency strategies intended to enable the State and the City to achieve GHG reduction and energy conservation goals. A full discussion of the project’s consistency with GHG reduction City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-12
plans is included in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 4.5-4, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with (and not conflict with nor obstruct) State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Table 4.5-4 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum.

Pursuant to AB 2076, the CEC and CARB prepared and
adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s
Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce
petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand.

Consistent. The proposed project would encourage
housing development in urbanized areas that are near
transit, employment, and services, thereby encouraging
the use of active transportation (walking, biking) and
public transit, and reducing the city’s per capita VMT. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The 2019 report
highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy, as well as provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing
buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and
integrating more renewable energy into the electricity
system.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, which
mandates the implementation of Title 24. Given these
features, the project would facilitate decarbonization of buildings (removing GHG emissions from the building’s
energy use), the increase in energy efficiency savings, and integration of more renewable energy into the
electricity system. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2019
Integrated Energy Policy Report.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard. California’s RPS obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure 33 percent
total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Consistent. Electricity suppliers in the City are required to generate electricity that would increase renewable
energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent
by 2045. Thus, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the California Renewable
Portfolio Standard.

Energy Action Plan. In the October 2005, the CEC and
CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some
important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the
context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include energy efficiency, demand
response, renewable energy, electricity
adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure,
transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure,
research/development/demonstration, and climate
change.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, which
mandates the implementation of Title 24. The project
would encourage housing development in urbanized
areas that are near transit, employment, and services,
thereby encouraging the use of active transportation
(walking, biking) and public transit, and reducing the
City’s per capita VMT. Given these features, the project would facilitate implementation of the nine major action areas in the EAP. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the EAP.

AB 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plans. The State
Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state
Consistent. The project would not interfere with or
obstruct the production of biofuels in California. Vehicles used by future residents would be fueled by gasoline and diesel fuels blended with ethanol and biodiesel fuels as required by CARB regulations. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.5-13
Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency production of biofuels without causing a significant
degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, EO S-06-06. The EO establishes the following targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050.
the Bioenergy Action Plan or the State Alternative Fuels Plan.

Title 24, CCR – Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) and Part 11 (CALGreen). The 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards move toward cutting energy
use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less.

The CALGreen Standards establish green building criteria for residential and nonresidential projects. The 2019
Standards include the following: increasing the number of parking spaces that must be prewired for electric vehicle chargers in residential development; requiring all
residential development to adhere to the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance; and requiring more
appropriate sizing of HVAC ducts.

Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the City Code, which
mandates the implementation of Title 24. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Title 24 standards.

In summary, the proposed project would not result in an increased reliance on fossil fuels or a decreased reliance on renewable energy sources and is consistent with applicable policies regarding energy conservation and renewable energy. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to energy source reliance would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
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 energy consumption is the City of San Leandro. This geographic scope is appropriate because the smallest scale at which energy consumption information is readily available is the city level.

Cumulative development in Huntington Park and throughout southern California would continue to increase concurrently with the region’s growing population; however, implementation of future community plans is expected to generally improve the efficiency of energy use. Furthermore, future development would be subject to compliance with the established Federal and State regulatory framework. As mentioned in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gases, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RPT/SCS provides a blueprint to integrate land use and transportation strategies to help achieve a coordinated and City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.5-14
balanced regional transportation system as well as reduce energy use and associated GHG emissions within the region.

As described under Impact E-1, development facilitated by the project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Additionally, housing development in infill locations is presumed to lower VMT due to the proximity to office and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact is not cumulatively considerable.

Development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and operation of the new residential structures would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

Overall, the project does not involve development of land uses or patterns that would cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary operational fuel consumption. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-1

4.6 Geology and Soils
This section provides an overview of geology and soils and evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include suitability of soil for development; geologic faults; and direct and indirect seismic hazards such as floods, erosion, subsidence, liquefaction, and landslides. this section evaluates whether the proposed project would substantially increase the exposure of people or structures to adverse effects related to seismic activity, unstable geologic materials, or erosion, or cause impacts to paleontological resources or unique geological features compared to existing conditions.

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
a. Regional Topography and Geology
The City of Huntington Park (City) is located in south central Los Angeles County, approximately six (6) miles south of downtown Los Angeles, 18 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and 1.9 miles west of the Los Angeles River. Within the Los Angeles basin, the proposed project is bound by the city of Vernon and the City of Los Angeles to the north, the City of Bell to the east, the City of South Gate to the south, and the unincorporated community of Walnut Park to the south and west.. Los Angeles County lies on a diverse geographic and geologic setting, stretching from Santa Monica Mountains of the northwest to the San Gabriel Mountains of the northeast to the Santa Ana Mountains to the southeast, with the Los Angeles Basin covering central and southern Los Angeles County. The Pacific Ocean borders the county to the west and south and to the east lies Orange County and San Bernadino County. Three rivers transverse the Los Angeles basin; the Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River, and the Rio Hondo River.

The Los Angeles basin is underlain by a structural depression, parts of which have been the sites of discontinuous deposition since Late Cretaceous age (last period of the Mesozoic era). Continuous subsidence and deposition in late Miocene and Pliocene time caused variations in lithology and thickness in most of the sedimentary rock units. Contemporaneous folding and faulting along with erosion resulted in numerous regional and local unconformities, disconformities, and stratigraphic discontinuities across faults. Figure 4.6-1, below, illustrates geological units and paleontological sensitivity within the City.

Below the unconformity are basement rocks composed of metamorphic and igneous crystalline rocks of Precambrian to early Late Cretaceous age; above the unconformity is a thick succession of marine and non-marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Late Cretaceous to Recent age, the superjacent rocks (Yerkes et al. 1965).
b. Geologic Hazards
Similar to much of California, Huntington Park is located in a seismically active region. The seismic hazards relevant to Huntington Park are described below.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-2
Figure 4.6-1 Geological Units and Paleontological Sensitivity Within the City of Huntington Park Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-3
Faulting and Seismically Induced Ground Shaking
Southern California is a region of high seismic activity. Like most cities in the region, the City of Huntington Park is subject to risks associated with potentially destructive earthquakes. Earthquakes are most common along geologic faults that are planes of weakness or fractures along which rocks have been displaced. Faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it has moved during the Holocene time, which consists of approximately the last 11,000 years. A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement within Quaternary time, which is during the last 1.8 million years. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.8 million years are generally considered inactive. There are no active or potentially active fault lines within the City, however the surrounding region contains many active or potentially active faults.

Seismicity, in the Los Angeles basin area historically has been defined by earthquake events along the Palos Verdes Fault, San Andreas Fault, Elysian Park Thrust, Newport-Inglewood Fault, San Jacinto Fault, Whittier-Elsinore Fault, Torrance-Wilmington Fault, and Sierra Madre Fault. Figure 4.6-2 depicts these fault lines in relation to the City.
 The Palos Verdes Hills Fault is located 20 miles southwest of the City. The fault is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 7.0 that would cause seismic intensities in the IX to X range, this could result in greater damage than an earthquake on the San Andreas fault due to its proximity to the City.  The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 37 miles to the north and northeast of the City at its nearest point, the total length of the San Andreas Fault Zone is approximately 750 miles. The length and active seismic history of the fault indicates it has a very high potential for large scale movement (magnitude 8.25) in the near future.  The Elysian Park Blind Thrust Fault is located approximately five miles north of the City. The fault was the source of the magnitude 5.9 earthquake near Whittier of 1987. The fault is considered capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 7.2 to 7.6 and would result in intense groundshaking in the entire Los Angeles basin.  The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is approximately nine miles west of the City. The magnitude

6.4 Long Beach Earthquake of 1933 occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault. The fault is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude of 6.8, with the potential of generating horizontal peak ground accelerations of about 0.2 to 0.3 in the area. This type of earthquake would be particularly damaging to older low-rise structures located within the City.
 The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 44 miles to the northeast of the City and is part of the San Andreas Fault System. The fault is considered capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 7.0.
 The Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately nine miles east of the City. The fault is considered capable of generating a magnitude 6.6 earthquake.  The Torrance-Wilmington Fault is a newly postulated, blind thrust fault and fold system located under the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Although this fault system is not well defined, it is estimated that if one of the segments ruptures, an earthquake of magnitude 5.0 to 7.5, would occur.  The Sierra Madre Fault Zone is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the City. The Sierra Madre fault system was responsible for the uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains by faulting in response to tectonic compression.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-4
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture represents the breakage of ground along the surface trace of a fault, which is caused by the intersection of the fault surface area ruptured in an earthquake with the earth's surface. Fault displacement occurs when material on one side of a fault moves relative to the material on the other side of the fault. This can be very destructive to structures constructed across active faults. However, the zone of damage is limited to a relatively narrow area along either side of the fault as opposed to seismic ground shaking damage that can be quite widespread. As described above, there are no active fault lines within the City. The closest fault zone is the Elysian Park Blind Thrust Fault, located approximately five miles from the City’s northern boundary.

Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated granular and non-plastic finegrained soils lose their structure/strength when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking.

Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater within the top 50 feet of the ground surface; 2) low-density non-plastic soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. The project site is located in an area that is at an elevated risk for liquefaction, shown Figure 4.6-2. The majority of the City is within a liquefaction hazard zone, as indicated by the California Geological Survey (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2022c). Areas containing shallow groundwater within 30 feet or less of the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction hazards during seismic shaking.

Landslides and Slope Stability
Seismic ground shaking can also result in landslides and other slope instability issues. Landslides occur when slopes become unstable, and masses of earth material move downslope. Landslides are usually rapid events, often triggered during periods of rainfall or by earthquakes. Mudslides and slumps are a shallower type of slope failure. They typically affect the upper surficial soils horizons rather than bedrock features. Usually, mudslides and slumps occur during or soon after periods of rainfall, but they can be triggered by seismic shaking. The City has a relatively flat topography, and hazards associated with slope instability, erosion, and landslides are considered unlikely.

Additionally, the City of Huntington Park is not within or adjacent to a landslide susceptibility zone (DOC 2022d).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-5
Figure 4.6-2 Fault Lines in the Vicinity of Huntington Park City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-6
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay.

Erosion
Erosion is the wearing away of the soil mantle by running water, wind, or geologic forces. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon and ordinarily is not hazardous. However, excessive erosion can contribute to landslides, siltation of streams, undermining of foundations, and ultimately the loss of structures. Removal of vegetation tends to heighten erosion hazards. Depending on how well protected the soil is from these forces, the erosion process can be very slow or rapid. Construction activities represent the greatest potential cause of erosion.

Subsidence
Subsidence or settlement can occur from immediate settlement, consolidation, shrinkage of expansive soil, and liquefaction. Immediate settlement occurs when a load from a structure or placement of new fill material is applied, causing distortion in the underlying materials. This settlement occurs quickly and is typically complete after placement of the final load. Consolidation settlement occurs in saturated clay from the volume change caused by squeezing out water from the pore spaces. Consolidation occurs over a period of time and is followed by secondary compression, which is a continued change in void ratio under the continued application of the load.

Soils tend to settle at different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight or changes in properties over an area, which is referred to as differential settlement. Areas underlain by soft sediments or undocumented fills are most prone to settlement.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources and, therefore, evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.

As shown in Figure 4.6-1, the City of Huntington Park and surrounding area lies on Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) alluvial fan deposits. Late to middle Holocene alluvial deposits are Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-7
too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve fossil resources, but these sediments may grade downward into older, fossiliferous sedimentary deposits of early Holocene or late Pleistocene age. Geologic Setting
Huntington Park is in the Los Angeles Basin situated south of the Santa Monica Mountains within the east-west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and northwest of the Santa Ana Mountains within the north-south trending Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province(California Geological Survey [CGS] 2002). The Los Angeles Basin is approximately 20 miles wide and 50 miles long and is underlain by a deep structural depression, parts of this depression have been sites of discontinuous deposition since Late Cretaceous time and of continuous subsidence and deposition since middle Miocene time (Yerkes, et. al.1965).

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the CWA, formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 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 non-point source discharges to surface water.

Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is administered by the SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs. Huntington Park is in a watershed administered by the LARWQCB. Individual projects within Huntington Park that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan describing best management practices (BMP) the discharger would use to prevent and retain stormwater runoff and to prevent soil erosion.

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1977 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was substantially amended by the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108- 360).

NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through postearthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Programs under NEHRP help inform and guide local planning and building code requirements such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards such as those to which a project would be required to adhere.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-8
Figure 4.6-3 Huntington Park Liquefaction Zones
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-9
U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) created the Landslide Hazard Program in the mid-1970s; the primary objective of the program is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving our understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies.

The federal government takes the lead role in funding and conducting this research, whereas the reduction of losses due to geologic hazards is primarily a state and local responsibility. In Los Angeles County, plans and programs designed for the protection of life and property are coordinated by the Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Services. b. State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. The CBC is a regulatory tool that includes building code standards to address geologic and seismic hazards. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures. It requires, among other things, seismically resistant construction and foundation and soil investigations prior to construction. The CBC also establishes grading requirements that apply to excavation and fill activities and requires the implementation of erosion control measures. The City is responsible for enforcing the 2022 CBC, or most current CBC version, within Huntington Park.

The referenced codes and standards include requirements for evaluations of geologic conditions at future project sites and design and construction standards to address geologic hazards.

Geotechnical investigations are performed to identify the geologic conditions at a site and to evaluate whether a proposed project is feasible given the existing geological conditions. The Geotechnical report must be completed by a California licensed professional and must provide recommendations for foundation and structural design to address any geologic hazards. Such reports are required under the following conditions:
 New structures are designed under the California Building Code in accordance with CBC 1803.5.11 and CBC 1803.5.12.
 New structures designed under the California Residential Code and located in a seismic hazard zone in accordance with CRC R401.4. This requirement does not apply to new accessory structures including utility sheds, garages and accessory dwelling units.  New structures within a delineated earthquake fault zone:
 A single-family wood-frame or steel-frame dwelling exceeding two stories or when any dwelling is part of a development of four or more dwellings. Public Resources Code Chapter 7.5  Multi-family and commercial of any kind.
 Alterations or additions to any structure within a seismic hazard zone which exceed either 50 percent of the value of the structure or 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure.

Public Resources Code Chapter 7.8
 In accordance with CBC 1803.5.2 and CRC R401.4.1 where design values exceed the presumptive values or the classification, strength or compressibility of the soil is in doubt.  Where deep foundations will be used, a geotechnical investigation shall be conducted in accordance with CBC 1803.5.5.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-10
For new structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F, a geotechnical investigation shall be conducted in accordance with CBC 1803.5.11.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971, magnitude 6.6 San Fernando earthquake. The Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Act is to regulate development near the surface traces of active faults to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. The Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. Essentially, this Act contains two requirements: (1) it prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults; and (2) it establishes Earthquake Fault Zones and requires geologic/seismic studies of most proposed development within 50 feet of the zone. The Earthquake Fault Zones are delineated and defined by the State Geologist and identify areas where potential surface rupture along a fault could occur.

Seismic Safety Act
The California Seismic Safety Commission was established by the Seismic Safety Act in 1975 with the intent of providing oversight, review, and recommendations to the Governor and State Legislature regarding seismic issues. The commission’s name was changed to Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission in 2006. Since then, the Commission has adopted several documents based on recorded earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake, 1933 Long Beach earthquake, the 1971 Sylmar earthquake, etc. Some of these documents are listed as follows:
 Research and Implementation Plan for Earthquake Risk Reduction in California 1995 to 2000, report dated December 1994;
 Seismic Safety in California’s Schools, 2004, “Findings and Recommendations on Seismic Safety Policies and Requirements for Public, Private, and Charter Schools,” report dated December 1994;
 Findings and Recommendations on Hospital Seismic Safety, report dated November 2001;  Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquakes Safety, report dated October 2006; and  California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan 2007–2011, report dated July 2007.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 was passed into law following the destructive October 17, 1989, magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act directs the California Geological Survey CGS to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones, to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, landslides, amplified ground shaking, and inundation by tsunami or seiche. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires that site-specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones. CGS maintains these required maps.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-11
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
c. Local Regulations
Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan
The Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted in 2019, assesses the County’s vulnerabilities to various hazards and presents mitigation strategy, including goals, objectives, and actions that the County will strive to implement over the next five years. These hazards include earthquakes and landslides. The hazard mitigation plan seeks to identify opportunities for reasonable mitigation actions and sets out a five-year implementation plan.

City of Huntington Park Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan The Huntington Park Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, adopted in October 2004, includes resources and information to assist City of Huntington Park agencies, organizations, and citizens in mitigating risk from natural hazards, including earthquakes and landslides.

City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. The General Plan lists several geology, soils, and paleontology goals, policies, and actions as part of the Safety Element. The Safety Element goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project concerning seismic hazards (Huntington Park 1991):

SAFETY ELEMENT
The Safety Element describes the natural and man-made hazards that require special consideration in the land use planning and development process. The Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and specific measures to minimize seismic and underground pipeline danger to residents, workers, and visitors (Huntington Park 1991).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-12
City of Huntington Park Municipal Code
The City of Huntington Park lists several policies within its Municipal Code to mitigate potential geologic hazards. Article 8-1.03 requires a soils and geology report for all development within the City. Seismic design guidelines and requirements are detailed in HPMC Chapter 9-2.18.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EA, impacts related to geology and soils are considered significant if implementation of the Project would:

Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. 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.
b. Strong seismic ground shaking
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides
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 indirectly 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.

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
Paleontological Resources Sensitivity
Paleontological sensitivity refers to the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into the geologic deposits within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the fossils. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life, they are nonrenewable. Such impacts have the potential to be significant and, under the CEQA Guidelines, may require mitigation. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey.

The discovery of a vertebrate fossil locality is of greater significance than that of an invertebrate fossil locality, especially if it contains a microvertebrate assemblage. The recognition of new vertebrate fossil locations could provide important information on the geographical range of the Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-13
taxa, their radiometric age, evolutionary characteristics, depositional environment, and other important scientific research questions. Vertebrate fossils are almost always significant because they occur more rarely than invertebrates or plants. Thus, geological units having the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are considered the most sensitive.

The SVP outlines in its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010) guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within a project area. The SVP (2010) describes sedimentary rock units as having a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrates or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils, which are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically, or stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. The paleontological sensitivity of the project site has been evaluated according to the following SVP (2010) categories, which are presented below.

High Potential (Sensitivity)
Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas which contain potentially datable organic remains older than recent, including deposits associated with nests or middens, and areas that may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as significant. Full-time monitoring is typically recommended during any project-related ground disturbance in geologic units with high sensitivity.

Low Potential (Sensitivity)
Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic (processes affecting an organism following death, burial, and removal from the ground), phylogenetic species (evolutionary relationships among organisms), and habitat ecology.

Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations.

Undetermined Potential (Sensitivity)
Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-14
No Potential
Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. For geologic units with no sensitivity, a paleontological monitor is not required.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Impact GEO-1 THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN AN ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE, THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

Huntington Park is within the seismically active Southern California region, which may experience moderate to potentially severe ground shaking from earthquakes generated on known faults within 60 miles (approximately 100 kilometers) of Huntington Park. However, the are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within City limits. The active fault nearest to the project site is the NewportInglewood-Rose-Canyon fault, located approximately 4.75 miles southwest of City limits. Since there are no known active or potentially active faults passing through Huntington Park, the potential of on-site ground rupture due to movement on an underlying fault is not considered a significant hazard. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Impact GEO-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING. WITH COMPLIANCE OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Huntington Park is located in the seismically active region of Southern California and is subject to ground shaking associated with seismic activities. As discussed above in Environmental Setting, there are no active or potentially active fault lines within the City, however the surrounding region contains many active or potentially active faults. Seismicity, in the Los Angeles basin area historically has been defined by earthquake events along the Palos Verdes Fault, San Andreas Fault, Elysian Park Thrust, Newport-Inglewood Fault, San Jacinto Fault, Whittier-Elsinore Fault, Torrance-Wilmington Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-15
Fault, and Sierra Madre Fault. All Housing Element Opportunity Sites would be exposed to risk involving strong seismic ground shaking.

In general, all future housing development facilitated by the proposed project must demonstrate conformance with seismic design guidelines and requirements contained the CBC and in the City’s Building Code (HPMC Chapter 8-1) and requirements would be confirmed through the design review procedures (HPMC Chapter 9-2.18). The CBC contains design and construction regulations pertaining to seismic safety for buildings, which covers issues such as ground motion, soil classifications, redundancy, drift, and deformation compatibility. The City’s Grading Permit requires a geotechnical investigation, which would include conclusions and recommendations addressing grading procedures, soil stabilization during and post-construction, foundation design, and slope stability. The report would also include recommendations for corrective measures relative to other potential site geotechnical issues such as temporary shoring, interim slopes during construction, expansive soils, liquefaction, collapsible soils, consolidation, undocumented fill, compressible material, soil erosion, seepage, and landslides.

In particular, the following policies are included in the updated language to the Draft General Plan Safety Element, which are intended to ensure seismic hazards are avoided.  Health & Safety Element Policy 1. The City of Huntington Park shall continue to implement the City’s seismic hazard abatement program for existing un-reinforced buildings.  Health & Safety Element Policy 2. In areas with liquefaction potential, the City of Huntington Park shall require review of soil and geologic conditions, and if necessary, on-site borings, to determine liquefaction susceptibility of the proposed site.  Health & Safety Element Policy 3. The City of Huntington Park shall maintain and periodically review emergency procedures for earthquakes in the City’s Disaster Response Plan.  Health & Safety Element Policy 4. The City of Huntington Park shall promote earthquake preparedness within the community by participation in quake awareness programs, including distribution of brochure materials in Spanish and English. The City will encourage property owners to anchor buildings to their foundations, bolt water heaters to walls, and implement other preventive measures.

Thus, with the incorporation of proper engineering design and required compliance with CBC and city policies and requirements would minimize the risk to life or property associated with seismic shaking hazards, therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-16
Threshold 3: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Impact GEO-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING LIQUEFACTION. WITH COMPLIANCE OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described above, liquefaction is a potential hazard associated with certain types of soil and subsurface conditions. Liquefaction occurs when saturated or partially saturated and unconsolidated soils lose strength in response to stress, typically from earthquakes. This phenomenon can result in damage to infrastructure and foundations. The majority of the City is within a liquefaction hazard zone (DOC 2022c).

Areas containing shallow groundwater within 30-feet or less of the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction hazards during seismic shaking. Implementation of the proposed project would increase residential development and infrastructure that may be exposed to hazards associated with liquefaction. However, adherence to applicable engineering standards and required compliance with CBC and other City requirements would minimize the risk to life or property associated with liquefaction hazards. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Impact GEO-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING LANDSLIDES. WITH COMPLIANCE OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The City of Huntington Park and the surrounding area has a relatively flat topographic relief, and hazards associated with slope instability, erosion, and landslides are considered unlikely. The entirety of Huntington Park is not located within a landslide hazard zone (DOC 2022c). Future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to permit approval and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing seismic-related impacts (i.e., strong seismic shaking or ground failure including liquefaction and landslides), including the City’s Building Code (HPMC Chapter 8-1) and subject to existing State requirements and standards.

Considering these requirements, including the HPMC requirement for preparation of geotechnical investigations for housing developments, which would include conclusions and recommendations addressing grading procedures, soil stabilization during and post-construction, foundation design, and slope stability, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact concerning potential exposure to seismic-related hazards relating to landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-17
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 5: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact GEO-5 WITH ADHERENCE TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Implementation of residential development under the proposed project would involve construction activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities.

Loose and disturbed soils are more prone to erosion and loss of topsoil by wind and water. Erosion on graded slopes could cause downstream sedimentation impacts. Other related impacts resulting from substantial short-term erosion or loss of topsoil include topography changes and the creation of impervious surfaces. Short-term construction-related erosion would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and BMPs intended to reduce soil erosion.

Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to permits and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil, including the City’s Building Code (HPMC Chapter 8-1) and the implementation of the requirements to obtain a grading permit from the City. A grading permit would require a Grading Plan and Soils Engineering Report.. Considering the requirements discussed above, future development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 6: Would the project 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? Impact GEO-6 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN ON OR OFF-SITE LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION, OR COLLAPSE DUE TO UNSTABLE SOIL. WITH COMPLIANCE OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Seismic hazards in Huntington Park also include the potential for unstable soils that would potentially result in damage to existing or proposed infrastructure, and/or to introduce potential hazards to human health and safety. Unstable soils may include any materials not capable of supporting a selected land use. It is anticipated that site-specific geotechnical evaluations would be City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-18
conducted for individual development as the proposed project builds out. Compliance with CBC and other standards discussed in this section would minimize potential adverse effects.

In addition, any future projects would be reviewed for their compliance with General Plan policies, including Health & Safety Policies 1 and 2 which relate to building review regarding seismic hazards.

Future development in Huntington Park in areas with identified hazards would be required to appropriately address and be designed to withstand associated hazards to the maximum extent feasible. In general, the proposed project could facilitate developments that would replace older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects associated with unstable soils. With the implementation of and compliance with state and City regulations, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 7: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-7 THERE IS A MINIMAL RISK OF EXPANSIVE SOILS IN HUNTINGTON PARK, THEREFORE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANSIVE SOILS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the project that is constructed on expansive soils could be subject to damage or could become unstable when the underlying soil shrinks or swells. The adverse effects of expansive soils can be avoided through proper subsoil preparation, drainage, and foundation design. In order to design an adequate foundation, it must be determined if the site contains expansive soils through appropriate soil sampling and laboratory soils testing. Expansive soils are identified through expansion tests of samples of soil or rock, or by means of the interpretation of Atterberg limit tests, a standard soils testing procedure. The CBC includes requirements to address soil-related hazards, including testing to identify expansive soils and design specifications where structures are to be constructed on expansive soils. Typical measures to treat expansive soil conditions involve removal, proper fill selection, and compaction. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the CBC requires structural reinforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC, as well as relevant General Plan policies, would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-19
Threshold 8: 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?
Impact GEO-8 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD OCCUR ON URBAN SITES THAT WOULD BE SERVED BY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND WOULD NOT INCLUDE USE OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS.

IMPACTS RELATED TO SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would occur in urban areas with existing wastewater infrastructure located throughout the City. Development of proposed project residential sites within the city under the Housing Element would not require the use of septic systems, because they would be serviced by existing wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 9: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact GEO-9 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) sedimentary deposits (Qyf) are too young to preserve fossil resources as defined by SVP standards (2010) (i.e., deposits that are less than 5,000 years old cannot, by definition, contain fossils). Late to middle Holocene sedimentary deposits are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity at the surface; however, these units grade downward into older, potentially fossiliferous deposits of early Holocene to Pleistocene age (i.e., early Holocene to Pleistocene age deposits [Qoa]) at unknown depths, that can only be estimated, based on regional geologic setting in the absence of additional data. Accurately assessing the boundaries between younger and older units within the City is generally requires site-specific stratigraphic data, some form of radiometric dating, or fossil analysis from nearby sites.

Conservative estimates of the depth at which paleontologically sensitive units may occur reduce potential for impacts to paleontological resources. The depths at which these units become old enough to yield fossils is highly variable, but generally does not occur at depths of less than five feet throughout most of the San Fernando Valley. Sensitive units could occur at depths shallower than five feet on basin margins and near contact points with high sensitivity units. Early Holocene to Pleistocene sedimentary deposits have a well-documented record of abundant and diverse vertebrate fauna throughout California (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2023; University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP] 2023). Therefore, areas mapped as Quaternary young (middle to late Holocene) sedimentary deposits (Qyf) are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity at depths greater than five feet.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-20
Paleontological resources may be encountered during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction (e.g., grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing construction activity) in intact (native) geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Construction activities may result in the destruction, damage, or loss of undiscovered scientifically important paleontological resources, therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management
Housing development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) on a site located in an area mapped as Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with the following requirements prior to the commencement of any construction activities:

The Developer shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist to review project plans to determine if underlying paleontologically sensitive units (i.e., (i.e., Qoa) could be impacted. If potentially significant impacts are identified, the qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare and implement a Paleontological Resources Mitigation Plan (PRMP). The PRMP shall describe mitigation recommendations, including paleontological monitoring procedures; communication protocols to be followed in the event that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during project development; and preparation, curation, and reporting requirements.

As part of a PRMP, require the Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for the general contractor, subcontractor(s), and all construction workers participating in earth disturbing activities, regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by on-site personnel. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting. A training acknowledgment form must be signed by all workers who receive the training and retained by the City. In the event a fossil is discovered by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before re-starting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the mitigation outlined below (GEO-1[b]) to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

Conduct monitoring during ground construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations). Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set forth by the SVP (2010), which includes a B.S. or B.A. degree in geology or paleontology with one year of monitoring experience and knowledge of collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the Qualified Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be limited to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.6-21
GEO-1(b) Fossil Discovery, Preparation, and Curation
If a paleontological resource is discovered at any time during earthmoving activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction activities in the immediate area of the find are halted and diverted, and the City is contacted. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained (if not done so already) to evaluate the discovery. The paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County [NHMLAC]) along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures GEO-1(a) and GEO-1(b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. c. Cumulative Impacts
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 geology and soils impacts includes the areas surrounding the Draft Opportunity Sites, which includes most of the City of Huntington Park. scope includes development envisioned under the City of Huntington Park General Plan.

All development in Huntington Park is subject to geological hazards related to seismic activity, including strong ground shaking. Cumulative development in Huntington Park as described in Section 3 of this EA, Environmental Setting, would gradually increase population and therefore gradually increase the number of people exposed to potential geological hazards, including effects associated with seismic events such as ground rupture and strong shaking. However, conformance with the current CBC and City’s General Plan policies and the other laws and regulations, would ensure that project-specific impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant; thereby reducing the potential cumulative impact associated with any single development project to less than significant. Development under the proposed project could also result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil which could result in cumulative impacts when combined with other development in Huntington Park and the region that might also cause erosion. However, compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential erosion impacts associated with new development. Potential impacts associated with geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards would be less than significant.

Cumulative development in Huntington Park would disturb areas that may contain paleontological resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1(a) and GEO-1(b) would ensure that project impacts to paleontological resources would not be significant by creating added protections for potentially sensitive paleontological sites. Such compliance, and implementation of these measures along with existing policies and regulations, would ensure that the implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to paleontological resources. Therefore, significant cumulative paleontological resource impacts would not occur.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.6-22
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-1

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section identifies and evaluates impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. The State of California has undertaken initiatives designed to address the effects of GHGs, and to establish targets and emission reduction strategies for GHG emissions in California. The GHG data supporting this section is included as Appendix D of this Draft EA.

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as GHGs. GHGs allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation that warms the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature of the structure. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature, but emissions from human activities (such as fossil fuel-based electricity production and the use of motor vehicles) have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. Scientists agree that this accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and to global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most scientists agree there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long-term global temperature increases.

The gases widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation, largely determine its atmospheric concentrations.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6.

Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).1

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes the GWPs from the Fourth Assessment Report.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-2
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary GHG emitted through human activities. In 2020, CO2 accounted for about 79% of all U.S. GHG emissions from human activities. CO2 is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle–both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests and soils, to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (U.S. EPA 2022a).

Methane
Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas. In 2020, methane accounted for about 11 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions from human activities. Human activities emitting methane include leaks from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock.

Methane is also emitted by natural sources such as natural wetlands. In addition, natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period (U.S. EPA 2022a).

Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. In 2020, nitrous oxide accounted for about seven percent of all U.S. GHG emissions from human activities. Human activities such as agriculture, fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes are increasing the amount of N2O in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide is also naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's nitrogen cycle and has a variety of natural sources. Nitrous oxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years before being removed by a sink or destroyed through chemical reactions. The impact of one pound of N2O on warming the atmosphere is almost 300 times that of one pound of carbon dioxide (U. S. EPA 2022a).

Fluorinated Gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6)
Unlike many other GHGs, fluorinated gases have no natural sources and only come from humanrelated activities. They are emitted through their use as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (e.g., as refrigerants) and through a variety of industrial processes such as aluminum and semiconductor manufacturing. Many fluorinated gases have very high GWPs relative to other GHGs, so small atmospheric concentrations can have disproportionately large effects on global temperatures. They can also have long atmospheric lifetimes, in some cases, lasting thousands of years. Like other long-lived GHGs, most fluorinated gases are well-mixed in the atmosphere, spreading around the world after they are emitted. Many fluorinated gases are removed from the atmosphere only when they are destroyed by sunlight in the far upper atmosphere. In general, fluorinated gases are the most potent and longest lasting type of GHGs emitted by human activities (U.S. EPA 2022a).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-3
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Global Emissions Inventory
In 2019, worldwide anthropogenic totals 49,758 billion MT of CO2e, which is a 53 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (Our World In Data 2023). Specifically, 74.4 percent of CO2e is from CO2, 17.3 percent from CH4, 6.2 percent from N2O, and 2.1 percent from fluorinated gases were emitted in 2019. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 73.2 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 18.4 percent and 5.2 percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed 3.2 percent.

United States Emissions Inventory
U.S. GHG emissions were 6,347.7 MMT of CO2e in 2021 or 5,593.5 MMT CO2e after accounting for sequestration. Emissions increased by 6.8 percent from 2020 to 2021. The increase from 2020 to 2021 reflects the was driven by an increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion which increased 7 percent relative to previous years and is primarily due to the economic rebounding after the COVID-19 Pandemic (U.S. EPA 2023). In 2020, the energy sector (including transportation) accounted for 81 percent of nationwide GHG emissions while agriculture, industrial and waste accounted for approximately 10 percent, 6 percent and 3 percent respectively. (U.S. EPA 2022b).

California Emissions Inventory
California produced 376 MMT of CO2e in 2020, which is 47 MMT of CO2e lower than 2019 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the energy sector (including transportation), which comprises 81 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The agriculture sector is the second largest source, comprising 9 percent of the State’s GHG emissions while industrial uses and waste account for 6 and 4 percent respectively (U.S. EPA 2022b). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2021). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MT of CO2e (CARB 2017). c. Potential Effects Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, with 2013 to 2021 among warmest years from 1880 to 2021. The average global land and ocean surface temperature for January to December 2021 was 0.84°C (1.51 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020).

Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations jointly indicate that LSAT and sea surface temperatures have increased. Due to past and current activities, anthropogenic GHG emissions are increasing global mean surface temperature at a rate of 0.2°C per decade. In addition to these City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-4
findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC 2014, 2018).

Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally specific climate change case studies. However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). A summary follows of some of the potential effects that climate change could generate in California.

Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.4 to 3.2°C (4.3°F to 5.8°F) in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C (5.6°F to 8.8°F) in the next century (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. With increasing temperatures, shifting weather patterns, longer dry seasons, and more dry fuel loads, the frequency of large wildfires and area burned is expected to continue to increase. (California Natural Resources Agency 2021).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources [CDW] 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (CDW 2018). The Sierra Nevada Mountains snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack. Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (California Natural Resource Agency 2018).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-5
Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2020, observed by satellites, is approximately

3.3 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2020).

Global mean sea levels in 2013 were about 0.23 meter higher than those of 1880 (NASA 2020). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging between 0.25 to 0 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the Country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the Country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture [CDFA] 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (California Natural Resource Agency 2018). Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center [CCCC] 2006).

Ecosystems and Wildlife
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions with higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; California Natural Resource Agency 2018).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-6

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
The following federal, State, and local laws and regulations address climate change and GHG emissions.
a. Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the U.S. EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.
b. State
California Advanced Clean Cars Program
AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allowed California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the U.S. EPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules will be fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011). However, as a result of the SAFE Vehicles Rule discussed above, California’s waiver of Clean Air Act preemption was revoked, thereby rescinding the CARB’s authority to implement the Advanced Clean Cars program.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32) The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-7
main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 million metric tons (MMT of CO2e, which was achieved in 2016. CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others (CARB 2008). Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since the Scoping Plan’s approval.

The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014. The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).

On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 and SB 100. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the state. 2022 Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
In response to the passage of AB 1279 and the identification of the 2045 GHG reduction target, CARB published the Final 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2022 (CARB 2022). The 2022 Update builds upon the framework established by the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan and previous updates while identifying new, technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve California’s climate target. The 2022 Update includes policies to achieve a significant reduction in fossil fuel combustion, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action no natural and working lands (NWL) to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

The 2022 Update assesses the progress California is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan, addresses recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom, extends and expands upon these earlier plans, and implements a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, as well as taking an additional step of adding carbon neutrality as a science-based guide for California’s climate work. As stated in the 2022 Update, “The plan outlines how carbon neutrality can be achieved by taking bold steps to reduce GHGs to meet the City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-8
anthropogenic emissions target and by expanding actions to capture and store carbon through the state’s NWL and using a variety of mechanical approaches” (CARB 2022). Specifically, the 2022 Update includes the following:
 Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
 Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels.  Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
 Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document.
 Incorporates the contribution of NWL to the state’s GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality.
 Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture.
 Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action.  Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success.

In addition to reducing emissions from transportation, energy, and industrial sectors, the 2022 Update includes emissions and carbon sequestration in NWL and explores how NWL contribute to long-term climate goals. Under the Scoping Plan Scenario, California’s 2030 emissions are anticipated to be 48 percent below 1990 levels, representing an acceleration of the current SB 32 target. Cap-and-Trade regulation continues to play a large factor in the reduction of near-term emissions for meeting the accelerated 2030 reduction target. Every sector of the economy will need to begin to transition in this decade to meet our GHG reduction goals and achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Update approaches decarbonization from two perspectives, managing a phasedown of existing energy sources and technologies, as well as increasing, developing, and deploying alternative clean energy sources and technology.

Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing.

On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was assigned Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-9
targets of an 8 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 20202 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
 Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels As a result, the CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in 2017 and has initiated implementation. SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. CalRecycle has initiated the rulemaking process for these regulations with the proposed regulation text submitted to the Office of Administrative Law in October 2020.

Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, former Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2022 Title 24 standards. The California Building Standards Code’s energy-efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.
2 SCAG met 2020 GHG reduction but confirmation from CARB is still pending.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-10
PART 6 – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS/ENERGY CODE CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The 2022 Title 24 standards are the applicable building energy efficiency standards for the proposed project because they became effective on January 1, 2023.

PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341 in 2011, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: (1) diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and (2) diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom issued EO N-79-20, which established the following new statewide goals:
 All new passenger cars and trucks sold in-state to be zero-emission by 2035;  All medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state to be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and
 All off-road vehicles and equipment to be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible.

EO N-79-20 directs CARB, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the CEC, the California Department of Transportation, and other state agencies to take steps toward drafting regulations and strategies and leveraging agency resources toward achieving these goals.

California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279)
AB 1279, otherwise known as the California Climate Crisis Act, requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels. AB 1279 requires the CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the scoping plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and to identify and implement a variety of policies and strategies that Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-11
enable carbon dioxide removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the state. AB 1279 also requires the CARB to submit an annual report.

Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 (SB 1020) Adopted on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 creates clean electricity targets for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of retail sale electricity by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by 2035. This bill shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not allow resource shuffling.
c. Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve and fully adopt the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, also known as Connect SoCal. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes ten goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020).

The SCS technical report of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS demonstrates the region’s ability to attain and exceed the GHG emission reduction targets set forth by CARB; and outlines the region’s plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The regional vision of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS maximizes current voluntary local efforts that support the goals of SB 375. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS emphasizes new housing and job growth in transit priority areas, livable corridors, high-quality transit areas, and neighborhood mobility areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobshousing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development. This overall land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures.

SCAG’s RTP/ SCS provides specific strategies and tools for successful implementation. These include supporting projects that provide diverse housing choices, focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, leveraging technology innovations such as bike sharing and neighborhood electric vehicles, implementing congestion pricing, improvements to pedestrian infrastructure, and more. d. Local
City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-12
another. The General Plan lists several greenhouse gas emissions goals, policies, and actions as part of the Open Space and Conservation Element. The following goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project (Huntington Park 1991):

OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The Open Space and Conservation Element describes existing energy conservation patterns in the City. The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the goals and policies for reducing energy use and emissions through land use, transportation, and energy use planning (Huntington Park 1991).

City of Huntington Park General Plan Environmental Justice Element The City of Huntington Park General Plan Environmental Justice Element was adopted in November 2022. The Environmental Justice Element contains a comprehensive set of goals and policies aimed at increasing the role and influence of historically marginalized populations and reducing their exposure to environmental and health hazards. The following goal, policies, and programs from the Environmental Justice Element are relevant to GHG emissions (City of Huntington Park 2022):

Goal 1: Protect the Huntington Park community from the harmful effects of pollution exposure.

Policy 1.5: Replace City vehicles with zero or low-emissions vehicles, when feasible, for noncommercial and public safety uses in order to work toward a low-emissions City target by 2030.

Program 1.5.1: Develop a low-emissions fleet vehicle plan by the year 2026, with a goal of reducing City vehicle emissions and identifying funding resources, including Statesponsored funding and other grant initiatives to support this effort.

Policy 1.18: Encourage the use of ecologically based landscape design principles to support improved air quality by absorbing CO2, producing oxygen, and providing shade that reduces energy required for cooling.

Program 1.21.1: As part of the development review process, provide a handout that outlines ecologically based landscape design principles, including the incorporation of parklets, landscaped medians, and landscaping within development.

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
GHG emissions for operation of the proposed project were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The input data and subsequent emission estimates for development facilitated by the proposed project are summarized below and detailed in Appendix D. At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level construction analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level construction GHG emissions. Therefore, construction GHG emissions were not quantified.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-13
Operational GHG Emissions

MOBILE SOURCES
Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in vehicle trips throughout the City associated with development facilitated by the proposed project. Mobile source emissions were estimated using VMT data prepared by Translutions, Inc. and mobile emissions rates from CalEEMod. As shown in Table 4.7-1, development facilitated by the proposed project would gradually increase vehicle trips and VMT. However, VMT per service population would decrease due to reduced trip lengths.

Table 4.7-1 Vehicle Activity Data for the Housing Element and General Plan Update Activity Existing (2020) Future + Project (2040)
Total Vehicle Trips 120,315 130,404
Total VMT 1,099,804 1,174,656
Total VMT per service population 9.14 9.01
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 Quantities include trucks.

Source: Translutions 2023

ENERGY SOURCES
Emissions from energy use include electricity and natural gas use. Development facilitated by the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions using electricity associated with cooling and lighting. Emissions from electricity use only applies to GHG emissions (as the energy is generated off-site and therefore may not be relevant for local and regional air quality conditions) and are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CAPCOA 2022). Development facilitated by the proposed project would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE). Specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2e per megawatt-hour) from SCE are used in the calculation of GHG emissions.

The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies. The 2022.1 CalEEMod currently incorporates California’s 2019 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards. As the Housing, Safety, and Land Use and Community Development Element Update is for the years 2021-2029, projects approved subsequent to December 2022 would be subject to at least 2022 Title 24 standards.

AREA SOURCES
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating, were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, U.S. EPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2022).

WATER AND WASTEWATER EMISSIONS
Water used and wastewater produced by a project generate indirect GHG emissions. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, convey, and treat water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, the wastewater treatment City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-14
process itself can directly emit both CH4 and N2O. Indoor and outdoor water use is estimated using CalEEMod default values.

WASTE SOURCES
GHG emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on CARB’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CARB 2010). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Refrigerants
GHG emissions from refrigerants were calculated in CalEEMod and are based on industry data from the US EPA. GHG emissions from refrigerants are associated with building air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment’s lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate (CAPCOA 2022).

Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to GHG emissions, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. As a result, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a threshold of significance. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[f]). As a note, the Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-15
CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.” Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less-thansignificant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies, and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

Neither the City of Huntington Park nor the County of Los Angeles has adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions or formally adopted a local plan for reducing GHG emissions. Likewise, neither the South Coast Air Quality Management District, (SCAQMD), Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), nor any other State or applicable regional agency has adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project.

Therefore, the significance of the proposed project’s potential impacts regarding GHG emissions and climate change is evaluated based on consistency with plans and polices adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. Operational GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are quantified for informational purposes but are not compared to a numeric threshold.

In the absence of a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) or GHG reduction plan, the state recommends determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the 2022 Scoping Plan by assessing if the project is consistent with all the key project attributes identified in Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. These attributes are detailed under Impact GHG-1 below in Table 4.7-2. According to the 2022 Scoping Plan “Projects that have all the key project attributes should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals” (CARB 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan states that “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-16
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the proposed Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 2: Would the proposed Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT

CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies
2022 SCOPING PLAN
The principal state plan to monitor and regulate GHGs is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was followed by SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. According to CARB, California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target in 2016. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to SB 32, the Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions, the latest iteration of which is the 2022 Scoping Plan. 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. Table 4.7-2 demonstrates the proposed project’s consistency with the strategies and actions outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Table 4.7-2 Consistency with Applicable 2022 Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Actions from Scoping Plan Scenario: Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs1 Transportation Electrification: Provides EV charging
infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary standards in the California Green
Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

Potential Conflict. As individual project-level details are not available at this stage of project planning, it is
unknown how much EV charging infrastructure would be
provided by development facilitated by the Housing
Element and General Plan Update and if it would meet the most ambitious voluntary standards. Therefore,
development facilitated by the Housing Element and
General Plan Update could conflict with the transportation electrification action and impacts would be potentially significant.

VMT Reduction: Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or
redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized
land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
No Conflict. The proposed project would facilitate the
infill development of 2,668 residential units that would redevelop commercial land uses throughout the City. As
existing commercial uses that would be redeveloped, the Housing Element opportunity sites are presently served by existing utilities and essential public services.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-17
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
VMT Reductions: Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands.

No Conflict. The project is an infill and redevelopment of commercial uses to residential uses and would not require the development of natural and working lands.

VMT Reduction:
 Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of
20 residential dwelling units per acre), or
 Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or
 Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS.

No Conflict. Opportunity housing sites in the Florence/Salt Lake, Pacific/Randolph, and Slauson/ Long Beach areas
would be within a half mile of existing LA Metro light rail stations and existing bus stops. Housing opportunity sites within the Huntington Park area would be within a half
mile of existing bus stops serviced by LA DOT and LA
Metro.

VMT Reduction: Reduces parking requirements by:
 Eliminating parking requirements or including
maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or  Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or
 For multifamily residential development, requiring
parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or
own a residential unit.

Potential Conflict. As individual project-level details are not available at this stage of project planning, it is
unknown how development facilitated by the proposed
project would reduce parking requirements. Therefore,
development facilitated by the proposed project could
conflict with the VMT reduction action and impacts would be potentially significant.

VMT Reduction: At least 20 percent of units included are affordable to lower-income residents.

Potential Conflict. As individual project-level details are not available at this stage of project planning, the
percentage of affordable units that would be included in development facilitated by the proposed project is
unknown. The Housing Element is required to include
affordable units as mandated by state law; however, the total number of affordable units, and the breakdown by
individual project, is unknown at this time. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed project could
conflict with this VMT reduction action and impacts would be potentially significant.

VMT Reduction: Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.

No Conflict. Development facilitated by the project would redevelop existing commercial uses with residential uses and would not remove existing affordable units.

Therefore, no net loss of existing affordable housing units would occur.

Building Decarbonization:

Uses all-electric appliances without any natural gas
connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

Potential Conflict. Development facilitated by the Housing Element would be required to comply with all State (e.g., Title 24) and local plans for the reduction of GHGs. As individual project-level details are not available at this stage of project planning, it is unknown if all residential units would use all-electric appliances without natural gas connections. Therefore, development facilitated by the
proposed project could conflict with the building
decarbonization action and impacts would be potentially significant.
1 Taken from Table 3 in Appendix D of the Scoping Plan
Source: CARB 2022
City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-18
2020-2045 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars in the SCAG region by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. The 2020-2040 RTP/SCS includes ten goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 4.7-3. As shown therein, the project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 4.7-3 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options.
 Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations
 Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused
main streets
 Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
 Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized
land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities
and connectivity in existing neighborhoods
 Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips
(this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations)
No Conflict. The project would facilitate the infill
development of 2,668 residential units that would
redevelop commercial land uses throughout the City.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would be within walking and biking distance of existing residential, commercial, and recreational uses. In addition, the City is serviced by the LADOT and LA Metro bus systems.

Opportunity sites located in the Florence/Salt Lake,
Pacific/Randolph, and Slauson/Long Beach areas would be within half a mile of major transit stops. Therefore, the project would focus growth near destinations and mobility options.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices. Preserve and
rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent
displacement
No Conflict. The proposed project would construct 2,668 multi-family units for residents of varying income
categories. Development facilitated by the project would increase housing supply and diversity from the existing housing conditions. In addition, the new units would be designed to be more energy efficient and safer than the existing deteriorating buildings. Therefore, the project would promote diverse housing choices.

Leverage Technology Innovations. Promote low emission
technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles,
shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space
No Conflict. The project would incorporate all applicable measures of the 2022 CALGreen Building Standards, which are comparable (and more stringent in certain categories) than LEED standards. Thus, development facilitated by the project would require a minimum amount of EV ready and
EV charging parking stalls at each residential unit.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-19
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies.

Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions
No Conflict. The project would be designed and operated to meet the applicable requirements of CALGreen. The
project would be consistent with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen requirements. Development facilitated by the
project would require to follow mandatory measures
established by CALGreen that include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. Therefore, the project would support implementation of sustainability
policies.

Promote a Green Region.
 Support development of local climate adaptation and
hazard mitigation plans, as well as project
implementation that improves community resiliency to
climate change and natural hazards
 Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands and
carbon sequestration
 Promote more resource efficient development focused
on conservation, recycling and reclamation
No Conflict. The project would facilitate the infill
development of 2,668 residential units that would
redevelop commercial land uses throughout the City.

Therefore, the project would not interfere with regional wildlife connectivity or convert agricultural land. The project would comply with applicable conservation
policies such as the City’s General Plan, Title 24, and CALGreen. Accordingly, the project would support
development of a “green” region.

Source: SCAG 2020
GHG Emissions Generation
GHG emissions are provided for informational purposes. Operation of development facilitated by the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources, energy and water usage, vehicle trips, wastewater and solid waste generation, and refrigerants. Operational GHG emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project are shown in Table 4.7-4. As shown therein, annual emissions from development facilitated by the proposed project would be approximately 6,152 MT of CO2e per year. Thus, there is a potential for GHG emissions from the proposed project to contribute to cumulative omissions, proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Table 4.7-4 Annual Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Mobile 389
Area 899
Energy 3,946
Water 299
Solid Waste 616
Refrigerants 3
Total 6,152
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix D for CalEEMod worksheets.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-20
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation GHG-1 GHG Reduction Actions
Future individual projects facilitated by the proposed project would be required to implement with the following GHG reduction actions to ensure compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan or demonstrate how the project would comply with the 2022 Scoping plan without implementing each one or more of these GHG reduction actions.
 Transportation Electrification. Future projects under the proposed project shall comply with the most ambitious voluntary standards for transportation electrification in the California Building Standards Code at the time of approval or demonstrate that the future project would still comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan without meeting the California Building Standards Code voluntary standards.3
 VMT Reduction – Parking. Future projects under the proposed project shall include one of the following parking reduction requirements or demonstrate that the future project would still comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan without meeting the parking reduction requirements:
 Eliminate parking requirements or include the maximum allowable parking ratio ((i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or  Provide residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or
 For multi-family residential development, parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
 VMT Reduction – Affordable Housing. Future projects under the proposed project shall allocate a minimum of 20 percent of units to be designated as affordable or lower income or demonstrate that the future project would still comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan without meeting the affordable housing requirements.
 Building Decarbonization. Future projects under the Housing Element shall use all-electric appliances without any natural gas connections and shall not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. Demonstrating that the future project would still comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan without using all-electric appliances or other fossil fuels for appliances, may be used in lieu of all electric dwelling units.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require future projects developed under the proposed project to comply with the actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan or demonstrate that the future project would still comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan without meeting that specific GHG reduction action. As detailed in the Thresholds of Significance discussion above, projects that are consistent with all measures identified in Table 4.7-2 are automatically deemed consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Additionally, the 2022 Scoping Plan provides the ability for lead agencies to determine that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes may still be consistent with the State’s climate goals. These determinations must provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, 3 For reference, the 2022 Title 24 most ambitious voluntary standards require 40 percent of parking spaces be EV ready and a minimum of 15 percent of all parking spaces have EV charging stations. Depending on the year in which subsequent projects are approved, future Title 24 standards may supersede these requirements.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.7-21
the proposed project would be consistent with State and local policies for reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis for GHG emissions is global because impacts of climate change are experienced on a global scale regardless of the location of GHG emission sources. Therefore, GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts. Thus, the issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed under Impact GHG-1 above, project impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant with mitigation as the proposed project would be consistent with the State and local plans for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.7-22
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-1

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with exposure to hazards and hazardous materials from implementation of the proposed Housing Element and General Plan Update. This analysis consists of a summary of the existing conditions in Huntington Park, the hazard and hazardous materials regulatory framework, and a discussion of the potential hazardous impacts from development on inventory sites and throughout Huntington Park.

4.8.1 Setting
a. Definition of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste The term “hazardous material” has different definitions for different regulatory programs. For the purpose of this EA, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1) defines a hazardous material as any material that “because of its quantity, concentrations, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Hazardous materials include but are not limited to hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or environment.

A material is hazardous if it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. These types of hazardous materials are defined below:
 Toxic Substances. Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability, or even death. For example, such substances can cause disorientation, acute allergic reactions, asphyxiation, skin irritation, or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substances involved and is chemical-specific). Carcinogens, substances that can cause cancer, are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include benzene (a component of gasoline and suspected carcinogen) and methylene chloride (a common laboratory solvent and a suspected carcinogen).
 Ignitable Substances. Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their ability to burn.

Gasoline, hexane, and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances.  Corrosive Materials. Corrosive materials can cause severe burns. Corrosives include strong acids and bases such as sodium hydroxide (lye) or sulfuric acid (battery acid).  Reactive Materials. Reactive materials may cause explosions or generate toxic gases. Explosives, pure sodium or potassium metals (which react violently with water), and cyanides are examples of reactive materials.

Soil and groundwater can become contaminated by hazardous material releases in a variety of ways, including permitted or illicit use and accidental or intentional disposal or spillage. Before the 1980s, most land disposal of chemicals was unregulated, resulting in numerous industrial properties and public landfills becoming dumping grounds for unwanted chemicals. The largest and most contaminated of these sites became Superfund sites, so named for their eligibility to receive cleanup money from a federal fund established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of national City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-2
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the U.S. EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. Sites are added to the NPL following a hazard ranking system.

Numerous smaller properties have been designated as contaminated sites. Often these are gas station sites where leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) were upgraded under a federal requirement in the late 1980s. Another category of sites that may have some overlap with the types already mentioned is “brownfields” – previously used, often abandoned, sites that due to actual or suspected contamination are undeveloped or underused. Both the U.S. EPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintain lists of known brownfields sites. These sites are often difficult to inventory due to their owners’ reluctance to publicly label their property as potentially contaminated.
b. Existing Hazardous Materials Sites
The locations where hazardous materials are used, stored, treated and/or disposed of comes to the attention of regulatory agencies through various means, including licensing and permitting, enforcement actions, and anonymous tips. To the extent possible, the locations of these businesses and operations are recorded in database lists maintained by various State, Federal, and local regulatory agencies. In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies enforce regulations applicable to hazardous waste generators and users, and the and the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division tracks and inspect hazardous materials handlers to ensure appropriate reporting and compliance.

Permitted uses of hazardous materials include those facilities that use hazardous materials or handle hazardous wastes in accordance with current hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulations. The use and handling of hazardous materials from these sites is considered low risk, although there can be instances of unintentional chemical releases. In such cases, the site would be tracked in the environmental databases as an environmental case. Permitted sites without documented releases are, nevertheless, potential sources of hazardous materials in the soil and/or groundwater due to accidental spills, incidental leakage, or spillage that may have gone undetected.

Some facilities are permitted for more than one hazardous material use and, therefore, could appear in more than one database.

The potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil and groundwater in Huntington Park is generally based on a search of Federal, State, and local regulatory databases that identify permitted hazardous materials uses, environmental cases, and spill sites. The DTSC EnviroStor database contains information on properties in California where hazardous substances have been released or where the potential for a release exists. The SWRCB GeoTracker database contains information on properties in California for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, which may impact, or have potential impacts, to water quality, with emphasis on groundwater.

According to databases of hazardous material sites maintained by the DTSC (EnviroStor) and the SWRCB (GeoTracker), Huntington Park has the following types of hazardous sites that are still active or need further investigation: voluntary cleanup, corrective action, school cleanup, evaluation, tiered permit, State Response, Clean Up Program Site, and Lust Cleanup Site (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). These sites are dispersed throughout Huntington Park and are listed in the Draft Housing Element, Section V. Sites Inventory.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-3
Existing sites that may potentially contain hazardous land uses in Huntington Park include large and small-quantity generators of hazardous waste, such as dry cleaners, gas stations and other industrial uses. According to DTSC and SWRCB, there are192 open sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination located within Huntington Park, there are five open sites, including thirteen sites in need of evaluation, thirty-seven cleanup program sites, and five active sites. Figure 4.8-1 shows the hazardous material sites within Huntington Park.

Use, Transport, and Abatement of Hazardous Materials
The use of hazardous materials is typically associated with industrial land. Activities such as manufacturing, plating, cleaning, refining, and finishing, frequently involve chemicals that are considered hazardous when accidentally released into the environment.

To a lesser extent, hazardous materials may also be used by various commercial enterprises, as well as residential uses. In particular, dry cleaners use cleaning agents considered to be hazardous materials. Hardware stores typically stock paints and solvents, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Swimming pool supply stores stock acids, algaecides, and caustic agents. Most commercial businesses occasionally use commonly available cleaning supplies that, when used in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations, are considered safe by the State of California, but when not handled properly can be considered hazardous. Private residences also use and store commonly available cleaning materials, paints, solvents, swimming pool and spa chemicals, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

If improperly handled, hazardous materials can result in public health hazards through human contact with contaminated soils or groundwater, or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. There is also the potential for accidental or unauthorized releases of hazardous materials that would pose a public health concern. The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes are required to occur in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. In accordance with such regulations, the transport of hazardous materials and waste can only occur with transporters who have received training and appropriate licensing. Additionally, hazardous waste transporters are required to complete and carry a hazardous waste manifest, which includes forms, reports, and procedures designed to seamlessly track hazardous waste. c. Asbestos Containing Materials
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was widely used in structures built between 1945 and 1978 for its fireproofing and insulating properties. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were banned by U.S. EPA between the early 1970s and 1991 under the authority of the CAA and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to their harmful health effects. Exposure to asbestos increases risk of developing lung disease, such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis (U.S. EPA 2023a). Common ACMs include vinyl flooring and associated mastic, wallboard and associate joint compound, plaster, stucco, acoustic ceiling spray, ceiling tiles, heating system components, and roofing materials. Pre-1973 commercial and industrial structures are affected by asbestos regulations if damage occurs, or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb ACMs.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-4
Figure 4.8-1 Hazardous Material Sites within the City
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-5
Figure 4.8-2 Hazardous Material Sites within 0.25 Miles of a School City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-6
d. Lead and Lead Based-Based Paint
Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element. Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Excessive exposure to lead can result in the accumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because it is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Lead can affect almost every organ and system in the body. In children, lead can cause behavior and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, hearing problems, and anemia. In adults, lead can cause cardiovascular effects, decrease in kidney function, and reproductive problems. In addition, lead can result in serious effects to the developing fetus and infant for pregnant women (U.S. EPA 2023b). Among its numerous uses and sources, lead can be found in paint, water pipes, solder in plumbing systems, and in soils surrounding buildings and structures that are painted with lead-based paint (LBP). LBP was primarily used during the same time period as ACMs. Pre-1978 commercial and industrial structures are affected by LBP regulations if the paint is in a deteriorated condition or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb LBP surfaces. e. Schools
School locations require consideration because children are particularly sensitive to hazardous materials exposure. Additional protective regulations apply to projects that could use or disturb potentially hazardous products near or at schools. The California Public Resources Code requires projects that would be located within a quarter mile of a school and might reasonably be expected to emit or handle hazardous materials to consult with the school district regarding potential hazards. There are 32 schools located within Huntington Park. As shown in Figure 4.8-2, 122 sites that were identified as Draft Housing Opportunity Sites under the proposed project are within a

0.25 mile radius of existing schools and/or childcare facilities.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and waste can pose a potential hazard to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Federal, State, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste are in place to prevent unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the risk that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result emergencies and disasters. a. Federal Regulations
Primary Federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S.

EPA, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). The major laws enforced by these agencies are described below.

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
These acts established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-7
regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.

Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations Governed by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development, regulations for LBP are contained in the Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 33, which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known LBP and LBP hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees.

Additionally, all LBP abatement activities must follow California and federal occupational safety and health administrations California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) and OSHA, respectively and with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements.

Only LBP trained and certified abatement personnel can perform abatement activities. All lead LBP removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material at a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable Federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are contained in the CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. The management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (42 USC 6901 et seq.) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act) (42 USC 9601 et seq.)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et. Seq.) Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 499) These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. U.S. EPA provides oversight and supervision for Federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.

U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations
U.S. DOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers that transport hazardous waste on public roads. The Secretary of the U.S. DOT receives the authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended and codified in in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 5101 et seq. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), formerly the Research and Special Provisions Administration, was delegated the responsibility to write the hazardous materials regulations, which are contained in Title 49 of the CFR Parts 100-180. Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the HMTA, specifies requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials.

It requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements.

Under the HMTA, the Secretary "may authorize any officer, employee, or agent to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-8
of persons to the extent such records and properties relate to: (1) the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, testing, or distribution of packages or containers for use by any 'person' in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce; or (2) the transportation or shipment by any 'person' of hazardous materials in commerce.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
The U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA was created to assure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.

OSHA provides standards for general industry and construction industry on hazardous waste operations and emergency response. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is implemented by OSHA, contains provisions with respect to hazardous materials handling. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements, as set forth in Title 29 of the CFR Section 1910, et. seq., are designed to promote worker safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. OSHA has delegated the authority to administer OSHA regulations to the State of California.

Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, specifies additional requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials. Title 49 of the CFR requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements. Drivers are also required to be trained in function and commodity-specific requirements.

Other Hazardous Materials Regulations
In addition to the U.S. DOT regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, there are other applicable federal laws that also address hazardous materials:
 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992  Clean Water Act
 Clean Air Act
 Safe Drinking Water Act
 Atomic Energy Act
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) b. State Regulations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
As a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, the DTSC is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.

The DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) to regulate hazardous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the U.S. EPA approves the California program, both state and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-9
permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and CalRecycle to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.

If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority.

Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

California Occupational Safety and Health Act – California Labor Code, Section 6300 et seq.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 addresses California employee working conditions, enables the enforcement of workplace standards, and provides for advancements in the field of occupational health and safety. The Act also created CalOSHA, the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. CalOSHA’s standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. Under the former, the employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure. The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings. At sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, workers must have training in hazardous materials operations and a Site Health and Safety Plan must be prepared, which establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Hazardous Waste Management At the State level, under Title 22, Division 4.5 of the CCR, DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The HWCL, under CCR 22, Chapter 30, establishes regulations that are similar to RCRA but more stringent in their application and empowers the DTSC to administer the State’s hazardous waste program and implement the federal program in California. The DTSC is responsible for permitting, inspecting, ensuring compliance, and imposing corrective action programs to ensure that entities that generate, store, transport, treat, or dispose of potentially hazardous materials and waste comply with federal and State laws. The DTSC defines hazardous waste as waste with a chemical composition or other properties that make it capable of causing illness, death, or some other harm to humans and other life forms when mismanaged or released into the environment.

The DTSC shares responsibility for enforcement and implementation of hazardous waste control laws with the SWRCB and, at the local level, the LARWQCB, and city and county governments.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-10
California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 211 (b)
CCR 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 2511(b) pertains to water quality aspects of waste discharge to land. The regulation establishes waste and site classifications as well as waste management requirements for waste treatment, storage, or disposal in landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities. Requirements are minimum standards for proper management of each waste category, which allows regional water boards to impose more stringent requirements to accommodate regional and site-specific conditions. In addition, the requirements of CCR 23, Chapter 15 applies to cleanup and abatement actions for unregulated hazardous waste discharges to land (e.g., spills).

California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) Program The purpose of the California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to satisfy community right-to-know laws. The Cal ARP requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an extremely hazardous substance per California regulations to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off-site consequences through hazard identification, planning, source reduction, maintenance, training, and engineering controls. The RMP contains the following elements:
 Safety Information
 A Hazard Review
 Operating Procedures
 Training Requirements
 Compliance Audits
 Incident Investigation Procedures
The RMP must also consider the proximity to sensitive populations located in schools, residential areas, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, and child day care facilities. The RMP must also consider external events such as seismic activity. The CUPAs determine the level of detail in the RMPs, review the RMPs, conduct facility inspections, and provide public access to most of the information. There are three program levels identified by Cal ARP and they are dependent on the type of business, potential impact, and accident history, among other factors.

If an accidental release occurs the owner/operator of a facility shall ensure that response actions have been coordinated with local emergency planning and response agencies.

California Fire and Building Code
The 2019 Fire and Building Code establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to the construction, alteration, movement enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-11
c. Local Regulations
Los Angeles County Fire Department CUPA
In Huntington Park, the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is Los Angeles County CUPA, which is managed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD). The LACoFD assists industries in reporting to the statewide database CERS. This helps businesses identify common hazardous materials that are required to be reported. The City of Los Angeles CUPA is required to permit all locations that store reportable amounts of hazardous materials.

City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. California Government Code Section 65583(c) requires the Housing Element to maintain internal consistency with other General Plan Elements. The following goals, policies, and actions regarding hazards and hazardous materials are applicable to the proposed project as part of the Safety Element (Huntington Park 1991):

SAFETY ELEMENT
The Safety Element describes the natural and man-made hazards that require special consideration in the land use planning and development process. The Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and specific measures to minimize hazards and hazardous materials danger to residents, workers, and visitors (Huntington Park 1991).

Huntington Park Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP)
Huntington Park is exposed to earthquakes and windstorms. The NHMP describes the causes and characteristics of each hazard and what part of the City's population, infrastructure, and environment may be vulnerable to each specific hazard. This NHMP also includes resources and information to assist City residents, public and private sector organizations, and others interested in participating in planning for natural hazards. The mitigation plan provides a list of activities that may assist the City of Huntington Park in reducing risk and preventing loss from future natural hazard events.

City of Huntington Park Municipal Code
Title 4 of the Huntington Park Municipal Code includes Public Safety. The intent of this title to provide for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency; the direction of the Emergency Organization; and the coordination of the emergency functions of the City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-12

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EA, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold: 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?
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact HAZ-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN THE RELEASE OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND MAY OCCUR WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF A SCHOOL. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH

REGIONAL AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES WOULD MINIMIZE THE RISK OF RELEASES AND EXPOSURE TO THESE MATERIALS.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the project would primarily consist of infill development. Infill development can involve demolition of existing structures. Demolition could result in emission of lead and asbestos if building materials contain these substances. However, lead-based materials and asbestos exposure are regulated by CalOSHA. CCR Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials such that exposure levels do not exceed CalOSHA standards. Under this rule, construction workers (and by extension, neighboring properties) may not Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-13
be exposed to lead at concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period and exposure must be reduced to lower concentrations if the workday exceeds eight hours. Similarly, CCR Section 1529 sets requirements for asbestos exposure assessments and monitoring, methods of complying with exposure requirements, safety wear, communication of hazards, and medical examination of workers.

The control of asbestos during demolition or renovation of buildings is regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act. The Federal Clean Air Act requires a thorough inspection for asbestos where demolition will occur and specifies work practices to control emissions, such as removing all asbestos-containing materials, adequately wetting all regulated asbestos-containing materials, sealing the material in leak tight containers and disposing of the asbestos-containing waste material as expediently as practicable (U.S. EPA 2023c). Compliance with applicable standards would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials are less than significant.

Friable ACMs are regulated as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. As a worker safety hazard, they are also regulated under the authority of CalOSHA and by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In structures that would be demolished, any ACMs would be abated in accordance with State and Federal regulations prior to the start of demolition or renovation activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These programs would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health.

Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant.

Fluorescent lighting ballasts manufactured prior to 1978, and electrical transformers, capacitors, and generators manufactured prior to 1977, may contain PCBs. In accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act and other federal and State regulations, individual projects would be required to properly handle and dispose of electrical equipment and lighting ballasts that contain PCBs during demolition of older buildings, ensuring that the impact related to PCBs would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the project would include the use of construction machinery that would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. Additionally, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment. These types of hazardous materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by County, State, and Federal regulations and compliance with applicable standards discussed in Section 4.8.2, Regulatory Setting, would ensure impacts from construction-related hazardous materials would be less than significant.

In particular, the following policies are included in the updated language to the General Plan Safety Element, which are intended to ensure hazards to the public and schools are avoided.  Health & Safety Element Policy 13. The City of Huntington Park shall locate new and existing land uses involved in production, storage, transportation, handling, and/or disposal of hazardous materials a safe distance from other land uses that may be sensitive to such activities.
 Health & Safety Element Policy 14. The City of Huntington Park shall coordinate with Los Angeles County in sponsoring regular household hazardous waste disposal programs to enable residents to bring backyard pesticides, cleaning fluids, paint cans, and other common household toxics to a centralized collection center for proper disposal.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-14
 Health & Safety Element Policy 15. The City of Huntington Park shall cooperate with the County in local implementation of applicable portions of the Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
 Health & Safety Element Policy 16. The City of Huntington Park shall consult with companies operating underground pipelines, as well as the Public Utilities Commission and Office of Pipeline Safety, to determine the likelihood of explosion or rupture in case of accident or earthquake and shall ensure that the Fire Department and other disaster response agencies have access to route, depth, and shut-off information about each line.

Also, development facilitated by the proposed project would result in the addition of residential units throughout the City. Housing and other residential uses do not utilize substantial quantities of hazardous materials, and thereby pose little risk of exposing the public to hazardous materials.

Commercial uses would be subject to compliance with CCR, CalOSHA, and other agencies to ensure hazardous materials risks to the public are minimized as well.

The proposed project would facilitate residential development at a higher density in the vicinity of some schools, as shown in Figure 4.8-2, above. However, as discussed above, residential uses typically do not emit hazardous materials or substances. While these sites may have pre-existing contamination, specifically Site 51, they would be remediated through coordination with the appropriate regulatory agency pursuant to federal, state, and local regulations as listed in Section

4.8.2, Regulatory Setting.

Compliance with existing applicable regulations and policies would minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, impacts from a hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-15
Threshold: Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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? Impact HAZ-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT ON SITES CONTAMINATED WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

RELATING TO SITE REMEDIATION WOULD MINIMIZE IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES, RESULTING IN A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Existing sites that use or have historically used hazardous materials or that may contain contaminants in soils or groundwater in the City include large and small-quantity generators of hazardous waste, such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial uses. These sites could expose construction workers and future occupants to hazardous materials.

Specifically, since Huntington Park has a long history of manufacturing and industry, many parts of the City have environmental issues. Some opportunity sites near the Slauson/Long Beach station have active manufacturing or documented environmental contamination. Industrial uses on land often requires remediation and mitigation, which increases the cost of development. Table V-14, in Section V. of the Draft Housing Element, illustrates known release of hazardous materials on sites identified on opportunity sites and adjacent properties. As shown, two opportunity sites (6322-015- 011 and 6322-016-012) contain previous uses known for releasing hazardous materials. Neither of these properties contain agency-reported releases. On adjacent properties, one property is adjacent to an Underground Storage Tank (UST) release site located at 5951 Pacific Blvd. However, this is no longer an active case. No other agency reported releases are identified on adjacent sites. As noted within, cleanup of sites would not preclude residential development within the planning period.

It is also possible that UST in use prior to permitting and record keeping requirements may be present in the City. If an unidentified UST were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, it would be removed under permit from the City; if such removal would potentially undermine the structural stability of existing structures, foundations, or impact existing utilities, the tank might be closed in place without removal. Tank removal activities could pose both health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (UST Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the Environmental Programs Division.

The extent to which groundwater may be affected by an UST or other potential contamination source, if at all, depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, the duration of the release, distance from source, and depth to groundwater. If groundwater contamination is identified, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the commencement of any new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, the developer would be required to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, depending upon the nature of any identified contamination.

Compliance with existing State and local regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-16
However, development of identified hazard sites would be preceded by investigation, remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Los Angeles County Health Hazardous Materials Division, before construction activities could begin as currently required by federal, State, and local regulations. The agency responsible for oversight would determine the types of remediation and cleanup required and could include excavation and off-haul of contaminated soils, installation of vapor barriers beneath habitable structures, continuous monitoring wells onsite with annual reporting requirements, or other mechanisms to ensure the site does not pose a health risk to workers or future occupants. Compliance with General Plan policies as listed in Section 4.8.2, Regulatory Setting, and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would continue to apply to development and provide the same level of protection as they do under existing conditions. As the project would not increase the likelihood for development of identified hazard sites, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold: 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?
Impact HAZ-3 THERE ARE NO AIRPORTS WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK, AND HUNTINGTON PARK IS NOT WITHIN THE INFLUENCE AREA OF AN AIRPORT. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

There are no public or private airports within Huntington Park. The nearest airport is Compton/Woodley Airport which is located approximately 6 miles south of the City limits. The City of Huntington Park is located outside of the airport’s noise contours and the airport influence area (Los Angeles County 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas or proximity to airports.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-17
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN PHYSICAL CHANGES THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH OR IMPAIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE OR EVACUATION. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INTERFERENCE WITH THESE TYPES OF ADOPTED PLANS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

There are no proposed physical changes such as roadway construction that would interfere or impair emergency response or evacuation. The project would not result in changes to emergency evacuation routes, nor would it substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of an evacuation route would be hindered. The Draft Housing Opportunity Sites are on existing parcels that are not dedicated to circulation or access.

Development facilitated by the project would accommodate future population growth and would increase vehicle miles travelled in the City. This could lead to increased congestion during emergency evacuations. However, the City would review and approve projects to ensure that emergency access meets City standards. Development facilitated by the project, as well as all development in the City, must comply with road standards and are reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes and would not impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans.

Development facilitated by the project would result in population growth in the City. Population growth would incrementally increase traffic which could result in impacts to evacuation routes in the City and overburden adopted evacuation routes and other emergency response resources.

Additionally, large concentrations of people could also result in adverse effects related to the implementation of emergency plans because the increased population may overburden adopted evacuation routes and other emergency response resources. However, the management of emergency response and emergency evacuations plans includes regular updates to these plans that incorporate new or proposed developments, such as the development facilitated by the project.

In addition, the following policies are included in the updated language to the General Plan Safety Element, which are intended to ensure effective and coordinated response to disasters and further the City’s preventative measures.
 Health & Safety Element Policy 17. The City of Huntington Park shall maintain and regularly update the City’s Disaster Response Plan.
 Health & Safety Element Policy 18. The City of Huntington Park shall hold emergency drills to test the effectiveness of emergency preparedness plans.  Health & Safety Element Policy 19. The City of Huntington Park should periodically inspect emergency shelters to ensure that equipment and supplies are available and operational.  Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall provide the community with language-appropriate information on available financial, technical, and educational resources and programming for reducing climate change risks, including on the topics of building weatherization, energy and water efficiency, signs of heat-related illness, and emergency preparedness.
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall develop and support a network of resilience hubs to facilitate health, food, medical, and emergency services, especially to priority populations during climate hazards such as extreme heat events, flooding, and poor air quality events.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-18
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall coordinate with emergency services as well as utility providers to assess needed service improvements in providing increased redundancy and uninterrupted service for water, power, and emergency service response.
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. Emergency preparedness shall be established as a top City priority. Staffing and funding levels for local preparedness programs should be sufficient to keep all residents and business well informed and prepared in the event of a major earthquake or similar disaster.
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall continue to promote public education and awareness on all aspects of emergency preparedness, including the type and extent of hazards in the community, measures to reduce the likelihood of damage and injury, provisions for emergency supplies, steps to take immediately after a disaster, and the locations of shelters and medical facilities, and shall include education on climate change in multiple languages as it relates to health and emergency preparedness.  Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of local preparedness procedures.  Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall maintain community-based emergency preparedness training programs that target neighborhoods and businesses groups.

They shall ensure that such programs respond directly to local needs; include provisions for vulnerable populations such as non-English speaking, disabled, and sight/hearing-impaired residents; and are well publicized throughout the community.  Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall identify essential emergency facilities in the City, including shelters, and take the necessary actions to ensure that they will remain operational following a disaster.
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall partner with the Los Angeles County Health Department to develop and enhance disaster and emergency early warning systems to incorporate objective data and information for potential health threats such as heat-illness, and illnesses complicated by low air quality due to climate change hazards.  Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall prepare to effectively support evacuation events through effective mobilization of City staff and the use of communications systems.
 Health & Safety Element Policy xx. The City of Huntington Park shall adopt communication tools to reach at-risk communities and coordinate with local service providers to assist vulnerable populations such as the unhoused, elderly, and young children with evacuations.

Thus, development facilitated by the project would be reflected in the regular and required updates of emergency and evacuation plans applicable to the City. Compliance with General Plan policies as listed in Section 4.8.2, Regulatory Setting, would further ensure that development facilitated by the project would not result in the impairment of implementation or physical interference with evacuation or emergency response plans.

Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with evacuation or emergency response plans. The impact related to emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.8-19
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Impact HAZ-5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Refer to Section 4.17, Wildfire for a discussion of impacts related to wildfire. In particular, Impact WFR-2 concludes that the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites are not in or near moderate, high and very high fire hazard severity zones. As such, the project would not increase the likelihood of people or structures to be exposed to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Nonetheless, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
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 hazardous materials impacts is limited to projects within 0.25 mile of the sites. This geographic scope is appropriate for hazardous materials because risks associated with hazards and hazardous materials occur largely in a site-specific and localized context as adverse impacts from a hazardous materials release or spill diminish in magnitude with distance. Cumulative residential development in the vicinity of the identified hazardous materials sites would gradually increase the population exposed to the use and transport of hazardous materials; the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials; listed hazardous materials sites; and subject to emergency response and evacuation plans. The magnitude of hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites. Implementation of existing laws and regulations, including remedial action on contaminated sites, as discussed regarding the project under Impacts HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, would avoid potential hazard impacts.

Wildland fire impacts would be less than significant as all the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites are already zoned for development. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding wildland fire.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.8-20
Overall, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with individual developments are site specific in nature and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Since hazards and hazardous materials are required to be examined as part of the permit application and review process, potential impacts associated with individual projects would be adequately addressed prior to permit approval. With adherence to existing regulatory standards for hazardous materials, no significant cumulative human health impacts would occur, and the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-1

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the proposed project.

4.9.1 Setting
Watershed
The California Department of Water Resources divides surface watersheds in California into 10 hydrologic regions. Huntington Park lies in South Coast Hydrologic Region (South Coast Region), which contains 73 alluvial groundwater basins, covers approximately 11,00 square miles, and includes major portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino, San Diego, and Ventura counties, and a small portion of Santa Barbara County (CDW 2015). The South Coast Region comprises numerous rivers including the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Diego, San Luis Rey, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Margarita, and Ventura.

Although the Los Angeles River does not flow directly through the City limits, the City lies within the Los Angeles River Watershed, specifically Reach 2 of the river. The City of Huntington park serves as the coordinating agency for the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Watershed Management Group.

Reach 2 of the Los Angeles River consists of a concrete-lined river channel with year-round flows, primarily comprised of treated wastewater. The Chavez Ravine and Compton Creek sub-watersheds both lie within City limits, the Chavez Ravine sub-watershed covers most of the City at 1,885 acres and the Compton Creek sub-watershed covers two small portions of the western boundary of the City at 45 acres (CWE 2015).

Groundwater
Huntington Park is located on the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles, Basin 4-11, specifically the Central Subbasin, 4-011.4. Total storage in the Central Basin is estimated to be approximately 13.8 million acre-feet (MAF) with 1.1 MAF of unused storage, allowing for a total potential yield of approximately 217,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Huntington Park 2021). The Central Basin is currently being replenished by approximately 90,000 AFY of imported and recycled water, along with natural replenishment from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, totaling 200,000 AFY (Huntington Park 2021). Groundwater flow within the basin is generally from east and northeast towards the west and southwest, with outflow into the West Coast Basin. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, there is a potential of seawater intrusion, three seawater intrusion barriers have been implemented to protect the integrity of the Central Basin and surrounding subbasins.

The City has four active wells that draw water from the Central Basin and one inactive well which pending an improvement project (Huntington Park 2021). The City of Huntington Park Water Department has annual extraction rights of 3,853 acre-feet (AF) and extracted 3,360 AF on average annually between the years of 2011-2015 (Huntington Park 2021). The City’s projected water supply is expected to increase in the near future due to an increase in water efficiency through maintenance and improvements of City wells. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projects that the City water supply will be able to meet demands for all climate scenarios through 2045, as the overall water use in the City has declined steadily, even while population increased (Huntington Park 2021).

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-2
Water Quality
Groundwater from the Central Groundwater Basin is generally of good quality and is monitored by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) through a total of 335 monitoring wells throughout the Central and West Coast Basins (Huntington Park 2021). WRD prepares regional groundwater monitoring reports each year, to analyze groundwater levels and quality. The most recent report, 2020-2021, found the Central Basin has generally good water quality, with the majority of constituents below the secondary maximum contaminate level (SMCL) (WRD 2022). The WRD monitoring reports also analyze the quality of the imported and recycled water used to replenish the Central Basin, the 2020-2021 report found both imported and recycled water used for replenishment to be of good quality (WRD 2022). The LARWQCB is the primary agency charged with protecting and enhancing surface and ground water quality in the region. The LARWQCB designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater, sets objectives for water quality that must be attained or maintained, and describes implementation programs to protect water quality.

Flood Hazards
Floodplains are areas that are subject to recurring inundation and flooding located adjacent to rivers, streams, and coastal areas. Floodplains are described in terms of statistical likelihood of flooding in a given year, e.g., a 100-year floodplain has a one percent chance of flooding in any year, while a 500-year floodplain has a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any year.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishes base flood elevations (BFE) for 100-year and 500-year flood zones and establishes Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). SFHAs are those areas within 100-year flood zones or areas that will be inundated by a flood event having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 made flood insurance available for the first time. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the protection of property located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. There are no portions of Huntington Park located within the flood hazard zones as mapped by FEMA or Special Flood Hazard Areas as mapped by Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the CWA, with the goal of “restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)). The CWA directs states to establish water quality standards for all “waters of the United States” and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis.

Section 319 mandates specific actions for the control of pollution from non-point sources. The EPA has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the CWA, including water quality control planning and control programs, such as the NPDES Program, to the SWRCB and the RWQCBs. The LARWQCB is the CWA enforcement agency for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States based on the water body’s designated beneficial use. Water quality standards are typically numeric, although narrative criteria based upon biomonitoring methods may be employed where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-3
supplement numerical standards. Applicable water quality standards are contained in the LARWQCB Basin Plan which analyzes the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges the technology-based and water quality-based approaches for managing water quality. Section 303(d) requires that states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put into place. For waters on this list (and where the U.S. EPA administrator deems they are appropriate), states are to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL). TMDLs are established at the level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards. A TMDL must account for all sources of the pollutants that caused the water to be listed.

Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into “waters of the United States,” except as allowed by permit. 33 Code of Federal Resources § 328.3(a)(3). Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for and regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands or other waters of the United States. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, “waters of the United States” are broadly defined to consist of rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters, including adjacent wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
In California, the NPDES program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs.

Huntington Park lies within the jurisdiction of LARWQCB (Region 4) and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Regional Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105) and NPDES Permit No. CAS004004, which was adopted on July 23, 2021, and is set to expire on September 11, 2026.

MS4 permit requirements include reduction of pollutant discharges to the ‘maximum extent practicable’ and protection of water quality. Requirements also include identification of major outfalls and pollutant loads and control of discharges from new development and redevelopment.

To address these objectives, municipalities are required to prepare stormwater management plans.

Although the NPDES program does not regulate nonpoint sources of pollution, the LARWQCB has other programs in place to address nonpoint sources.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The FEMA establishes BFEs for 100-year and 500-year flood zones and establishes SFHAs. SFHAs are those areas within 100-year flood zones or areas that will be inundated by a flood event having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 500-year flood zone is defined as the area that could be inundated by the flood which has a 0.2 percent probability of occurring in any given year, or once in 500 years, and is not considered an SFHA. There are no portions of Huntington Park located within the flood hazard zones as mapped by FEMA.

In 2000, FEMA adopted revisions to 44 CFR, known as the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) or DMA 2000. Section 322 (a-d) of the DMA 2000 requires local governments to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) as a condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds. The HMP must:
 Describe the process for assessing hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities.  Identify and prioritize mitigation actions.
 Solicit input from the community (public), key stakeholders, and adjacent jurisdictions and agencies.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-4
Huntington Park’s HMP is discussed under Local Regulations, below.

National Flood Insurance Act / Flood Disaster Protection Act The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 made flood insurance available for the first time. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the protection of property located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. These laws are relevant because they led to mapping of regulatory floodplains and to local management of floodplain areas according to guidelines that include prohibiting or restricting development in flood hazard zones. There are no portions of Huntington Park located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas.

National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule
In 1992, U.S. EPA promulgated the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131, establishing numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in multiple states in order to bring all states into compliance with the Water Quality Standards (WQS) requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA. The National Toxics Rule established WQS for 42 pollutants not covered under California’s statewide water quality regulations at that time. After the court ordered revocation of California’s statewide Basin Plans in September 1994, U.S. EPA initiated efforts to promulgate additional federal WQS for California. In May 2000, U.S. EPA issued the California Toxics Rule, which includes all the priority pollutants for which the EPA has issued numeric criteria not included in the National Toxics Rule.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974, allowing the U.S. EPA to promulgate national primary drinking water standards specifying Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs) for each contaminant present in a public water system with an adverse effect on human health. Primary MCLs have been established for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water. The U.S. EPA has also adopted secondary MCLs as non-enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects. States have the discretion to adopt them as enforceable standards.

U.S. EPA has delegated to the SWRCB the responsibility for administering California’s drinking‐water program. In 1976, California adopted its own safe drinking water act (see California Safe Drinking Water Act described below).
b. State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect State waters. These criteria include the identification of beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality standards, and implementation procedures.

The Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, protects designated beneficial uses of State waters through the issuance of WDRs and through the development of TMDLs. Anyone proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State must make a report of the waste discharge to the RWQCB or SWRCB as appropriate, in compliance with the Porter-Cologne Act.

The Los Angeles Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the Basin Plan that covers Los Angeles County (the ‘Basin Plan’) and is discussed under Local Regulations, below.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-5
California Safe Drinking Water Act
The U.S. EPA has delegated to the California Department of Public Health responsibility for administering California’s drinking‐water program. In 1976, two years after the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, California adopted its own safe drinking water act (contained in the Health and Safety Code) and adopted implementing regulations (contained in 22 CCR). California’s program sets drinking water standards that are at least as stringent as the Federal standards. Each community water system also must monitor for a specified list of contaminants, and the monitoring results must be reported to the state. Responsibility for the state’s Drinking Water Program was transferred from the Department of Public Health to the Division of Drinking Water, which is a division of the SWRCB that was created in July 2014.

California General Plan Law, Government Code Section 65302 Government Code Section 65302(a) requires cities and counties located within the State to review the Land Use, Conservation, and Safety elements of the general plan "for the consideration of flood hazards, flooding, and floodplains" to address flood risks. The code also requires cities and counties in the State to annually review the Land Use element with respect to "those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping prepared by FEMA or the California Department of Water Resources."
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater, provides for the creation of regional Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) and requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins. The Central Basin is a Low Priority Basin; therefore, a GSA has not been created for the region.

Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act
The Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act (Water Code Section 8400-8435) gives support to the NFIP by encouraging local governments to plan, adopt, and enforce land use regulations for floodplain management, to protect people and property from flooding hazards. The Act also identifies requirements that jurisdictions must meet to receive State financial assistance for flood control.

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11) includes mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential development. For example, Section 4.106.2 requires residential projects that disturb less than one acre and are not part of a larger common plan of development to manage stormwater drainage during construction through on-site retention basins, filtration systems, and/or compliance with a stormwater management ordinance. Section 5.106.1 requires newly constructed nonresidential projects and additions of less than one acre to prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff from construction through compliance with a local ordinance or implementing BMPs that address soil loss and good housekeeping to manage equipment, materials, and wastes. Section 5.303 sets measures for indoor water use for non-residential development requiring metering devices to conserve water.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-6
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code, Section 10610 et seq.), which requires urban water suppliers to develop UWMPs to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies as well as conduct drought assessments and planning.

This Act also requires the provision of water service to be affordable to lower income households (Section 10631.1). Similarly, Government Code Section 65589.7 (SB 1087) requires water service providers to reserve water allocations for low-income housing. Every five years, water suppliers are required to update their UWMPs to identify short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands. The 2020 UWMP for the City of Huntington Park was adopted in May 2021. It emphasizes the City’s reliance on imported water to meet its needs and does not anticipate insufficient supply under multi-year drought conditions.

California Construction Stormwater Permit
The California Construction Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit), adopted by the SWRCB, regulates construction activities that include soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater to surface waters from construction activities. It prohibits the discharge of materials other than stormwater, authorized non-stormwater discharges, and all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established at 40 CFR 117.3 or 40 CFR 302.4, unless a separate NPDES Permit has been issued to regulate those discharges.

The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities will occur over more than one acre do the following:
 Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to the three Risk Levels established in the General Permit.
 Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters.  Develop and implement a SWPPP which specifies BMPs that will reduce pollution in stormwater discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards.
 Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs.

Typical BMPs contained in SWPPPs are designed to minimize erosion during construction, stabilize construction areas, control sediment and pollutants from construction materials, and address post construction runoff. The SWPPP also includes a plan for inspection and maintenance of all BMPs, as well as procedures for altering or increasing BMPs based on changing project conditions. c. Local Regulations
City of Huntington Park General Plan
Huntington Park’s General Plan was adopted in February 1991 and consists of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, Noise, Public Facilities, and Urban Design Elements. All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. The General Plan lists several hydrology and water quality goals, policies, and actions as part of the Open Space and Conservation, Safety, and Public Facilities Elements.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-7

OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The Open Space and Conservation Element describes existing air quality, groundwater, energy conservation, open space, parks, and recreation patterns in the City. The Open Space and Conservation Element also contains policies to conserve and protect groundwater and imported water resources. It identifies the goals, policies, and specific measures for managing the community’s natural resources, open space, and recreational areas (Huntington Park 1991).

SAFETY ELEMENT
The Safety Element describes the natural and man-made hazards that require special consideration in the land use planning and development process. The Safety Element establishes goals, policies, and specific measures to minimize flood danger to residents, workers, and visitors (Huntington Park 1991).

PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
The Public Facilities Element describes the existing public services and infrastructure patterns and setting of Huntington Park. The Public Facilities Element identifies goals, policies, and specific measures to maintain a consistent level of quality for public facilities, including water and stormwater for residents, workers, and visitors (Huntington Park 1991).

City of Huntington Park Municipal Code
The HPMC establishes regulations that implement the City’s General Plan. Title 4, Public Safety, of the HPMC describes the City’s public safety standards and requirements to reduce hazards including hydrologic hazards. Chapter 9, Stormwater Management and Discharge, of Title 7, Public Works, of the HPMC establishes development measures and requirements to reduce stormwater pollution, erosion, and other forms of water pollution.

City of Huntington Park Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan The Huntington Park Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, adopted in October 2004, includes resources and information to assist City of Huntington Park agencies, organizations, and citizens in mitigating risk from natural hazards, including flood events, dam failure, and sea level rise. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City Water Department is responsible for implementing an UWMP. The current 2020 UWMP includes an assessment of past and future water supplies and demands, evaluation of the future reliability of the region’s water supplies over a 20-year planning horizon, and discussion of demand management measures (Huntington Park 2021).

Los Angeles Basin Water Quality Control Board
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. Huntington Park is within the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB (Region 4).

The LARWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the Basin Plan, updated most recently in September 2014. This Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of the state waters in Region 4, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-8
programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan (California Water Board 2014).

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of development facilitated by the project as relevant to hydrology, water quality, and flood risk. The impact analysis is based on an assessment of baseline conditions for the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites, including surface water, groundwater, and floodplains information gathered from the City of Huntington Park, Los Angeles County, and multiple state and federal agencies, as described above under Section 4.9.1, Setting.

This analysis identifies potential impacts based on the predicted interaction between the affected environment and construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to the development facilitated by the proposed project.

The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this programmatic EA, project implementation may have a significant adverse impact if it would:

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

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 off-site.

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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.

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 that would 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.

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 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.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-9
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Impact HYD-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT VIOLATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction activities associated with development facilitated by the project would include demolition of existing structures, construction of new development, and the replacement and/or improvement of drainage facilities. Similar to existing conditions, construction activities could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, and soil stockpiling. Elevation and slope vary minimally throughout the City. Runoff during storm events typically occurs as sheet flow across the site, and the types of pollutants contained in runoff may include sediment and other existing contaminants such as nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, trace metals, and hydrocarbons that can attach to sediment and be transported downstream through erosion via overland flow, ultimately entering nearby waterways and contributing to degradation of water quality.

Similar to existing conditions, construction activities would utilize hazardous materials such as diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricant oils, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, cement slurry, and other fluids required for the operation of construction vehicles or equipment. These types of hazardous materials are not acutely hazardous, and storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by county, state, and federal regulations and compliance with applicable standards discussed under Regulatory Setting. Transport of these materials to and from construction sites would also be regulated under multiple authorities as discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction, as discussed in Regulatory Setting, above. This includes compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for projects that disturb one acre or more of land, and compliance with Los Angeles Region’s NPDES MS4 Permit (Municipal Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004) which requires measures to reduce and eliminate stormwater pollutants, installation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater runoff from construction sites, and that grading and drainage permits be obtained prior to construction. Grading and drainage plans accompanying the permit application must include BMPs for erosion prevention and sediment control, fencing at waterways and in sensitive areas, and limitation of disturbed areas through temporary features. The permit applications must also demonstrate compliance with NPDES MS4 permit provisions.

Compliance with existing regulations and policies discussed above would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to construction activities. Because violations of water quality standards would be minimized through existing regulations, impacts to water quality from construction activities from development facilitated by the project would be less than significant.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-10
Operation
Development facilitated by the proposed project is not likely to increase of impervious surfaces throughout the Draft Housing Opportunity Sites as most of the sites will be considered infill development on pre-developed sites and few Draft Housing Opportunity Sites being developed on underdeveloped manufacturing sites. On-site development and any associated off-site improvements greater than one acre in size would need to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the development of a SWPPP, and development smaller than one acre would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards code for stormwater and construction runoff, as described in detail above. SWPPP implementation would reduce the risk of water degradation on site and off site from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project operation because a SWPPP requires the design, installation, and maintenance of post-construction stormwater controls.

As described in Regulatory Setting, above, Provision C.3 of the NPDES MS4 Permit allows permitting authorities to enforce post-construction BMPs to control operational stormwater runoff and water quality. Construction site inspectors from the Huntington Park Public Works Department enforce adherence to these BMPs. Chapter 9, Stormwater Management and Discharge, of Title 7, Public Works, of the HPMC establishes development measures and requirements to reduce stormwater pollution, erosion, and other forms of surface and ground water pollution.

Implementation of the regulations, permit requirements, BMPs, and policies described above would prevent or minimize impacts related to water quality and ensure that development facilitated by the proposed project would not cause or contribute to the degradation of water quality in receiving waters. Development facilitated by the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: 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?
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT THE PROJECT MAY IMPEDE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL GROUNDWATER BASINS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Huntington Park's water supply comes from two sources; imported water from the State Water Project and Colorado River, and groundwater. As described in Setting, above, the City of Huntington Park sits atop the Central Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, which is used to supply groundwater to the City of Huntington Park and surrounding area. The Central Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-11
Subbasin is a Low Priority Basin under SGMA and is not required to develop a GSP. The City’s groundwater use remains healthy, as the overall water use has steadily decreased each year since 2000, even while population increased (Huntington Park 2021).

Development facilitated by the proposed project could increase the demand for water within the City, but the City’s water efficiency and consistent decline in total water use allows for an increase in demand if necessary. The City of Huntington Park’s water use is significantly lower than the rest of the South Coast hydrologic region, most notably through the per capita water use for the City remaining below half of the per capita water use for the hydrologic region (Huntington Park 2021).

The UWMP projects the City’s water supply can keep pace with the growing demand for water use with the projected growth in population, as show in Table 4.9-1.

Table 4.9-1 City Growth Projections
Growth Characteristic 2020 Existing Population Estimate 2045 Population Forecast Difference 2020 UWMP Population Estimate and Forecast
Citywide Population 59,515 63,041 +3,526 (5.9%)
Project Population Estimate and Forecast
Citywide Population 59,337 69,983 +10,646 (17.9%)
2045 Difference - Project to UWMP +6,942
According to the 2020 UWMP, the City’s service area has a 2020 population of 59,515 and is projected to increase by 5.9 percent over the 25-year period from 2020 to 2045. However, Table 4.9-1 indicates that the population growth projected under the proposed project would be significantly higher than the 2045 UWMP estimates (+6,942 residents). Because the population growth forecast associated with the proposed project is higher than the UWMP forecast, it cannot be assumed that the growth is accommodated for in terms of water supply. Although supply cannot be assumed, it would not impact local groundwater supplies since the primary water purveyor for the City does not rely on or utilize any groundwater resources for its supply.

Additionally, Huntington Park is under the jurisdiction of the LARWQCB, which is responsible for preparing the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the LARWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives. With adherence to the State and local water quality standards discussed above, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on water quality and would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan.

As mentioned above, development facilitated by the project is not likely to increase the number of impervious surfaces, as most of the Draft Opportunity Sites are infill development and have been previously developed. As mentioned in Setting of this section, recharge of the Central Groundwater Basin is done naturally and artificially through imported and recycled water. The majority of the natural groundwater recharge for the Central Basin occurs through the Whittier Narrows and artificial recharge for the Basin occurs through the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River spreading grounds which lie to the east of the City. Natural and artificial recharge of the Central Groundwater Basin is not anticipated to be impacted by development facilitated by the proposed project.

Implementation of existing local regulations and policies would ensure that development facilitated by the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or conflict City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-12
with implementation of water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 3a: 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold 3b: 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Threshold 3c: 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 that would 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? Threshold 3d: 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 impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact HYD-3 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT

SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES, INCLUDING THROUGH

THE ALTERATION OF THE COURSE OF A STREAM OR RIVER, IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL

EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF-SITE OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURFACE

RUNOFF IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN FLOODING OR EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. IMPACTS RELATED TO DRAINAGE PATTERNS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction activities would involve stockpiling, grading, excavation, dredging, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities that could temporarily alter existing drainage patterns. As described above, compliance with SWRCB’s NPDES Construction General Permit and Los Angeles Region’s NPDES MS4 Permits, and the applicable local regulations would reduce the risk of short-term erosion and increased runoff resulting from drainage alterations during construction. Local alteration of drainage at individual Draft Housing Opportunity Sites from development facilitated by the proposed project may occur, but such drainage alteration would be considered prior to grading or use permit approval, would be required to connect to the existing storm drainage system, and no Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-13
alteration of the course of streams or creeks would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the project may alter the existing drainage patterns in the Draft Housing Sites through introduction of new impervious surfaces and infrastructure, such as driveways, roofs, and patios, as well as new downspout outflows from residential rain gutters and new runoff from landscaping irrigation. These alterations could increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff, redirect runoff to different discharge locations, or concentrate runoff from sheet flow to channelized flow. Runoff that does not infiltrate and flows off site would be captured in the local storm drain systems and ultimately discharge to the Los Angeles River.

Threshold 1 discusses applicable regulations that would limit pollutant discharges, including sediment and silt, from the proposed project. As discussed above, multiple layers of regulations require development facilitated by the proposed project to reduce and eliminate stormwater pollutants, as well as implementation of BMPs to control post-construction operational stormwater runoff. In particular, Provision VIII of the Los Angeles Region NPDES MS4 Permit, which requires post-construction stormwater control BMPs, and the Huntington Park General Plan and Municipal Code policies requiring adherence to the NPDES Permit as a condition of grading and use permit approval will work to enforce compliance with all relevant standards and regulations.

The Huntington Park General Plan goals and policies intended to reduce flood hazards and overwhelming of the drainage system, such as Safety Element Policies 2.1 through 2.4 and Public Facilities Policies 6.1 through 6.3, would reduce the potential for increased susceptibility to flooding on or offsite. Implementation of these goals and policies would ensure that the runoff from development facilitated by the project does not exceed the capacity of existing and future storm drain systems. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage patterns or contribute runoff water in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, nor would it exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in substantial additional polluted runoff. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact HYD-4 DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT PLACE HOUSING AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN FEMA-DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD AREAS AND TSUNAMI ZONES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Huntington Park does not contain large surface water bodies that would result in seiches. There are a no FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Areas throughout city limits. The City of Huntington Park and surrounding area are not within a Tsunami Hazard Area. Therefore, there are no Draft City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-14
Housing Opportunity Sites within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
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 Huntington Park, as described above in Section 4.9.1, 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 throughout this analysis, development facilitated by the proposed project would increase the demand for water, which is supplied through imported and ground water. Cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact with the implementation of each development project. The project’s impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater management efforts would be less than significant and the proposed project would not have a cumulative considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater.

Cumulative development would generally increase impermeable surface area and increase runoff into the Los Angeles watershed. Development would potentially increase peak flood flows, alter drainage patterns, and increase pollutants in the regional stormwater. However, cumulative development would also be required to adhere to all applicable State and local regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality, including the Huntington Park Municipal Code, NPDES Construction General Permit and MS4 General Permit, and Basin Plan policies. All construction sites larger than one acre in size would be required to prepare and submit a SWPPP, thereby reducing the risk of water degradation on and off site from soil erosion and other pollutants, and smaller developments would still be required to adhere to any permit requirements imposed by the applicable policies and ordinances discussed under Impacts HYD-1 through HYD-4, above.

As discussed above under Impacts HYD-1 through HYD-4, development facilitated by the proposed project would increase impervious surface areas. However, compliance with relevant water quality regulations, BMPs, and policies would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to construction and operational activities. Construction and operation of development facilitated by the project would not violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The project’s water quality and groundwater recharge impacts would be less than significant. Development facilitated by the proposed project would comply with NPDES, MS4, and City requirements related to stormwater runoff and water quality and consequently would not contribute to cumulative impacts to peak runoff, flooding, groundwater recharge, or water quality. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to water quality.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.9-15
As discussed under Impact HYD-4, Huntington Park is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area or within a zone at risk of inundation by flood or seiche and therefore are not at risk of release of pollutants due to inundation. Projects would be analyzed and mitigated on a case-by-case basis and would be designed to avoid or mitigate potential impacts related to flooding. Cumulative impact related to flooding or seiche would therefore be less than significant with applicable mitigation. As discussed under Impact HYD-4, development facilitated by the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Projects would be required to adhere to all applicable building and fire codes, zoning requirements and design standards related to flood flows and project inundation, and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to flood hazard or inundation risks in the greater watershed or groundwater basin. Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.9-16
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Assessment 4.10-1

4.10 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the consistency of the proposed project with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and identifies environmental effects that would arise from such inconsistencies.

4.10.1 Setting
a. Existing Land Uses
The general distribution of land uses within the City is shown in Table 4.10-1. Although residential land uses comprise most of the City’s land area, Huntington Park is characterized by a diverse range of land uses. Commercial uses, found throughout the City, make up the second largest portion of land area in the City. Less predominant in terms of land area are industrial, parks and recreation, schools, and public facilities.

Table 4.10-1 Existing Land Use Summary for Huntington Park Land Use Designation Existing Acres (June 1990) General Plan Acres Low-Density Residential (up to 8.7du/ac) 277 276
Medium-Density Residential (up to 17.4 du/ac) 289 160
High-Density Residential (up to 20 du/ac) 238 321
Central Business District (CBD)/Residential - 85
General Commercial 198 208
Professional Commercial 16 10
Light Industry 271 total 124
Industrial Manufacturing 271 total 131
Parks and Recreation 51 46
Schools 70 82
Public Facilities 36 25
Streets 470 470
Rail Transportation Corridor 37 37
Vacant 22 0
Total Acres 1,975 1,975
du/ac=dwelling units per acre
Parks and Recreation acreage appears to be reduced under the General Plan; this is due only to the redefining of the Civic Center buildings and the DWP right-of-way as “Public Facilities.” No reduction in park acreage is proposed.

The existing land use survey included churches and water storage tanks in the Public Facilities category, Land use policy permits churches in all residential and commercial designations. Properties containing water storage tanks have been designated in the Plan for other land uses in the event any of the properties become available for other uses in the future. These circumstances account for the different acreage totals.

City of Huntington Park
Housing Element and General Plan Update

4.10-2
City of Huntington Park 1991 General Plan Land Use Designations

RESIDENTIAL
 Low Density Residential: The Low-Density Residential land use designation permits residential units up to 8.7 units per acre. Residences in this category are usually single-family, detached houses with private yards. Manufactured homes on permanent foundations are also permitted.

Other uses, such as day care, schools, churches, and utility uses, are also allowed if the uses are shown to be compatible with, and serving the needs of, Low-Density Residential areas.  Medium Density Residential: The Medium-Density Residential land use designation permits residential units up to 17.4 units per acre. These residences can include townhouses, small-lot single-family dwellings (e.g., zero lot line houses), two- and three-family housing arrangements, and low-rise apartment buildings. Other uses, such as rest homes, child-care facilities, and churches, are permitted if the uses are shown to be compatible with and serving the needs of Medium-Density Residential areas.
 High Density Residential: The High-Density Residential land use designation permits residential units up to 20 units per acre. Dwellings are typically within apartment or condominium complexes with shared open space. Other uses, such as rest homes, child-care facilities, and churches, are permitted if the uses are shown to be compatible with and serving the needs of High-Density Residential areas.
 Senior Citizen Housing Overlay: The Senior Citizen Housing Overlay land use designation permits senior citizen residential units up to 225 units per acre. Dwellings are typically located in high-rise developments with shared open space, meeting facilities, and lower parking requirements.

MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL
 Central Business District (CBD)/Residential: The CBD/Residential land use designation is defined by use and specific location. Along portions of Pacific Boulevard, General Commercial and Professional Commercial uses are required on the ground floor, with either commercial or residential uses allowed on the upper floors. The maximum permitted floor-area ratio (FAR) for a CBD/Residential designation on Pacific Boulevard is 4:1.

Along portions of Rita, Rugby, and Seville avenues, residential and commercial uses are permitted to exist side by side. Multi-family residential development is allowed up to 70 units per acre without a requirement for commercial uses, and commercial development is allowed up to a FAR of 2:1 without a requirement for residential uses. However, General Commercial and Professional Commercial uses are permitted on the lower floors of an otherwise residential building. If a site on Rita, Rugby, or Seville includes both residential and commercial uses, 70 units per acre plus maximum allowable FAR commercial uses are permitted.

Single Room Occupancy Hotels are also permitted under the CBD/Residential designation.

All residences in the CBD/Residential area are required to have private, secured parking.  General Commercial: The General Commercial land use designation permits a wide range of neighborhood and general retail and service establishments, such as stores and repair shops, to accommodate the surrounding community. Permitted uses include, among others, household appliance stores, auto repair shops, cafes, drugstores, and newsstands. The maximum permitted FAR is 1:1.