1. Exhibit C - Signal Hill Housing Element CEQA Findings of Fact

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Signal Hill, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the 2021-2029 Signal Hill Housing Element (Project), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), Recirculated Draft EIR, and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Project.

SECTION I.

INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Exhibit C
Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v.

City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION II.

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 19 through 20.) Explanation: All 4 identified Housing Sites are located at infill sites as defined under Section 21099 as at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the Housing Sites adjoin or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. Additionally, all 4 Housing Sites are located in areas identified as Transit Priority Areas (TPA) based on the SCAG 2045 TPAs for plan year 2045, developed for the SCAG 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the location of the Housing Sites, development of these sites would be less than significant to scenic vista. Furthermore, under CEQA, a scenic vista is considered a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements comprising man-made or natural features. The General Plan Land Use Element states that views from the Hilltop Park “must be preserved for the benefit of the community and the general public.” Further, Environmental Resources Element Policy 1.1, states that the City will “protect views both to and from the Hill and other scenic features.” The City’s View Protection Policy also identifies other unique visual landmarks from the Hill such as the ocean, Long Beach skyline, the Queen Mary, the Palos Verdes peninsula, Los Angeles, and the San Gabriel/Santa Ana mountains. Development would have the potential to affect scenic vistas if new or intensified development obstructs the visibility of unique visual landmarks and scenic vistas. The anticipated housing development at the 4 identified Housing Sites would be comparable in height to its surrounding developments. Walnut Creek and Orange Bluff Housing Sites would both be rezoned to SP-7, Special purpose Housing Specific Plan, allowing no more than two stories at each site. Similarly, Town Center Northwest would be rezoned to SP-6, Commercial Corridor Specific Plan, also allowing for no more than 2 stories or forty-five feet in height, whichever is less. The limitation of these sites to no more than 2 stories would be comparable in height to existing surroundings and views available from streets and other viewpoints would not be obstructed. Lastly, Heritage square will be rezoned to SP-11, Crescent Heights Historic District Specific Plan which requires new developments to conform to the historic character of the area. Future proposed developments will also be reviewed by the City and be presented to the Planning Commission for review to ensure character, scale, and massing of the proposed structures would be comparable to the existing environment of the surrounding area. As such, build out of the Housing Sites would not have an adverse effect on views from the top of Signal Hill or from other vantage points toward the identified visual landmarks. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 19 through 20.)

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 20.) Explanation: The 4 Housing Sites are considered infill sites within areas identified as TPAs as provided for in PRC Section 21099. Furthermore, there are no State scenic highways in or near the City of Signal Hill. The closest officially designated State scenic highway is the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway, between mileposts 25.7 and 31.9 in Los Angeles which is approximately 23 miles north of the City. The distance between the City and the officially designated scenic highways indicate that the developed Housing Sites would not be visible from a State scenic highway. As such, the proposed Housing Site build out would not substantially damage any scenic resources within a State scenic highway and the impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 20.)

3. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 21)
Explanation: The 4 Housing Sites are considered infill sites within areas identified as TPAs as provided for in PRC Section 21099. Furthermore, the City is located in an urbanized area, where there is a variety of nonresidential and residential land uses and extensive urban infrastructure improvements. For purposes of determining impact significance for projects within urbanized areas, a project is evaluated for whether it would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing “scenic quality.” The term “scenic quality” is not specifically defined in the threshold language of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines; however, for assessment of impacts involving changes in visual character and quality, this is interpreted as pertaining to zoning standards involving building height and bulk, design character, landscape elements, and consistency with scale, massing and character of surrounding development.

The Walnut Bluff Housing Site is zoned CI. The General Plan designation is Commercial Industrial. A zone change to Special Purpose Housing (SP7) Specific Plan, and a General Plan amendment to Very High Density Residential (35-45 dwelling units per acre) is proposed. The Heritage Square Housing Site existing zoning is CTC, and Crescent Heights Historic District (SP-11) Specific Plan. The General Plan designation is Town Center. The Land Use Element of the General Plan calls for the area to be re-designated and established as a Central Business District (CBD). The Town Center Northwest Housing Site existing zoning is Commercial Corridor Specific Plan (SP-6). The General Plan designation is Town Center. Designation of the site to accommodate housing will require a zoning ordinance amendment to a Town Center Northwest (SP-21) Specific Plan. The Orange Bluff existing zoning is CI. The General Plan designation is Commercial Industrial. Designation of the site to accommodate housing will require a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the site to the Special Purpose Housing (SP-7) Specific Plan designation. As mentioned previously, building heights after rezoning at Walnut Bluff, Orange Bluff, and Town Center Northwest will be limited to 2 stories or heights comparable to existing surrounding development. Heritage Square will be rezoned under Crescent Heights Historic District, which will continue to maintain the historic nature of the neighborhood and its surroundings.

The 4 Housing Sites are considered infill sites within areas identified as TPAs as provided for in PRC Section 21099 which would mean the development impacts to aesthetic resources are less than significant under CEQA. Additionally, the Housing Sites would be rezoned for the appropriate anticipated housing development in the future to allow for housing development. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact regarding conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Initial Study, p. 21.)

4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 21 through 22.) Explanation: The 4 Housing Sites are considered infill sites within areas identified as TPAs as provided for in PRC Section 21099. As such, implementation of the Housing Sites would not be considered significant under CEQA.

Additionally, the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not introduce any additional light or glare as the project does not directly approve development of any kind. However, future development of the identified Housing Sites is anticipated and potential light and glare effects of each site are analyzed below.

The Walnut Bluff site is vacant aside from four oil or gas wells on site and limited vegetation. The Heritage Square site is mostly vacant with some retail commercial and light industrial buildings and limited vegetation on site. The Town Center Northwest site contains oil wells, light industrial structures, and limited vegetation. The Orange Bluff site is mostly vacant, remnants of previous development including foundations and paved areas, and limited vegetation. Existing outdoor lighting exists at each of the Housing Sites for security and decorative purposes. These areas are highly urbanized and, therefore, already provides night lighting from streetlights along Orange Avenue and Willow Street; general industrial and commercial industrial uses to the north, east and south of the project vicinity; vehicle headlights on surrounding streets; traffic lights at the intersection of Orange Avenue and Willow Street. Additional existing lighting includes exterior lighting on nearby structures and parking lot lighting.

Subsequent construction of housing on the Housing Sites would require lighting, which would include nighttime security lighting and general lighting associated with residential development within and outside of the construction areas. Lighting fixtures would be aimed downwards and hooded to minimize glare. Lighting sources generated by the construction of the Housing Sites would be similar to and consistent with the surrounding uses in the area and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views.

Individual housing projects developed on each Housing Site would include lighting wall-mounted security lighting angled downward, as well as upward-and downward-facing accent lighting within the interior of the site, such as downward lighting under the canopies at the building entrances and upward-facing, wall-mounted, decorative lighting on building exteriors. In short, the Housing Sites would provide illumination for safe usage and night lighting accents, which would not spill across the site boundaries, as is required by the Cal Green Building Standards Code 5.106.8, Light Pollution Reduction (incorporated into the Signal Hill Municipal Code, as described in Chapter 15.10). Regarding glare, the proposed building elevations at Housing Sites would be constructed with nonreflecting glazing to the extend feasible and building design would be reviewed by the City and proceed through plan check prior to project approval. As such, the proposed project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Initial Study, pp. 21 through 22.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 23.)
Explanation: The City does not contain areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Farmland of Local Potential, or Grazing Land as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s (2016) California Important Farmland Finder. The Housing Sites are classified as Other land type, which is described on the Important Farmland Finder as land that is not included in any of the other mapping categories. Since the City does not contain farmland and the proposed project would not convert designated farmland to nonagricultural uses, the proposed project would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. (Initial Study, p. 23.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 24.)
Explanation: The City limit does not contain land areas encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. The identified Housing Sites, Walnut Bluff, Heritage Square, Town Center Northwest, and Orange Bluff are zoned as CI, CTC, Commercial Corridor Specific Plan (SP-6) and Commercial Industrial, respectively. Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to the provisions of a Williamson Act contract and does not contain zoning for agricultural use, no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24.)

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 24.)
Explanation: The City does not contain existing forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. Housing Sites are zoned as CI, SP-7, CTC, and SP-6. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24.)

4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 24.)
Explanation: The City does not contain forest land and is composed largely of highly developed urban communities and highly disturbed sites. Several vacant sites exist within the City limits but contain limited vegetation. There is no substantial concentration of trees within the City limits which would constitute a forest. The City does not contain lands managed as timberland or were managed to produce forest products. There would be no loss of forestland or conversion of forestland; therefore, no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24.)

5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 24.)
Explanation: The City limits does not contain Farmland or forest land. The identified Housing Sites are mostly vacant aside from four oil or gas wells on site (on Walnut Bluff and Town Center Northwest) and limited vegetation.

Surrounding land uses of individual Housing Sites include a combination of commercial, light industrial, multifamily and single-family residential uses.

There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on, or zoned for agricultural uses within the City. In addition, no forestland is located within the City or in its vicinity. Thus, no farmland or forestland would be converted to other uses by developing the Housing Sites, and no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 24.)
C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-31 through 4.1-32.) Explanation: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an updated air quality management plan (AQMP) in March 2017. The Final 2016 AQMP was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments; accommodate growth; reduce pollutants in the Air Basin; meet federal and State air quality standards; and minimize the fiscal impact of pollution control measures on the local economy. It builds on approaches in the previous AQMP to achieve attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. These planning efforts have substantially decreased exposure to unhealthy levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Air Basin. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumption used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily emissions thresholds.

SCAG has the responsibility for preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. With respect to the determination of consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared and adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy that addresses regional development and growth forecasts. Determining whether or not a project exceeds SCAG’s growth forecasts involves the evaluation of the following: (1) consistency with applicable population, housing, and employment growth projections; (2) project mitigation measures; and (3) appropriate incorporation of AQMP land use planning strategies.

It is important to note the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any development projects or propose any specific development. However, the following analysis assess for the impacts of development taking place over the identified Housing Sites to help determine the feasibility for development at each identified sites in accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2(c).

A project is consistent with the AQMP, in part, if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The Project would conform to objectives outlined in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and the Signal Hill General Plan.

Specifically, the Project would be consistent with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Regional Housing Strategy Framework which places an emphasis on affordable infill housing development within transit-oriented neighborhoods. The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would not approve any developments and the identified Housing Sites are all located within High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) according to SCAG which is considered a generally walkable transit village or corridor and is within one half-mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor within 15-minute or less service frequency during peak hours.

Additionally, the housing unit development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be put in place, in part, to accommodate for an existing shortage of housing for the existing population in the region and within the City limits. As such, the development of housing units at identified Housing Sites are not anticipated to induce new population growth. As such, the increase in population at full build out of housing units in compliance with the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation would be comparable to the 2045 SCAG population forecast.

Additionally, the Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment at the federal level for O3, Pb, and PM2.5; and at the State level for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds to determine whether a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then it would significantly contribute to air quality violations in the Air Basin. As discussed further in Table 4.1-10 of the Draft EIR, temporary emissions associated with construction of the Housing Sites would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions. Additionally, as discussed further in Table 4.1-11 of the Draft EIR, long-term emissions associated with operation would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air plan and would not contribute to air quality violations in the Air Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-31 through 4.1-32.)

2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-33 through 4.1-34.) Explanation: A significant impact could occur if the Project would add a considerable contribution to Federal or State nonattainment pollutants. In regard to determining the significance of the Project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple related projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for projectspecific impacts. Furthermore, SCAQMD states that “projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, if a project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions, then the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment.

Construction
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Air Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. Rule 403 control requirements include measures to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Measures include, but are not limited to, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system or other control measures to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit a project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the VOC content of architectural coatings. Thus, compliance with these SCAQMD rules is incorporated into the analysis provided below.

Ambient pollutant concentrations standards are forecasted for all criteria pollutants during Project construction. These impacts would be temporary in nature, lasting only for the construction period, and would not have a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. The maximum daily regional construction emissions are provided in Table 4.1-10: Unmitigated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-10 of the Draft EIR, the daily maximum regional construction emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds prior to mitigation. Therefore, regional construction emissions resulting from construction of the Housing Sites would result in a less than significant short-term regional air quality impact during construction.

Operation
On-road mobile vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, landscape equipment, solid waste, and wastewater would generate the majority of emissions on-site during Project operation. The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions would be from Project-generated vehicle trips. The maximum daily regional operational emissions are provided in Table 4.1-11: Unmitigated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-11 of the Draft EIR, operational emission levels would not exceed the SCAQMD daily regional thresholds and, as such, would result in less than significant operation impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-33 through 4.1-34.)

3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-35 through 4.1-37.) Explanation: The results of the construction LST analysis for each Housing Site is provided below. It is important to note, in the event identified Housing Sites are developed, construction would be required to comply with the SCAQMD’s Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires watering of a project site during dust-generating construction activities, stabilizing disturbed areas with water or chemical stabilizers, and preventing track-out dust from construction vehicles, thus further reducing construction-related emissions.

Construction impact analysis of each Housing Site is provided below.

Orange Bluff
The maximum localized construction and operational emissions associated with the Orange Bluff site are provided in Table 4.1-12: Unmitigated Localized Construction and Operational Emissions – Orange Bluff of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-12 of the Draft EIR, the unmitigated daily localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the localized impacts associated with the Orange Bluff site would be less than significant.

Walnut Bluff
The maximum localized construction and operational emissions associated with the Walnut Bluff site are provided in Table 4.1-13: Unmitigated Localized Construction and Operational Emissions – Walnut Bluff of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-13 of the Draft EIR, the unmitigated daily localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the localized impacts associated with the Walnut Bluff site would be less than significant.

Town Center Northwest
The maximum localized construction and operational emissions associated with the Town Center Northwest site are provided in Table 4.1-14:

Unmitigated Localized Construction and Operational Emissions – Town Center Northwest of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-14 of the Draft EIR, the unmitigated daily localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the localized impacts associated with the Town Center Northwest site would be less than significant.

Heritage Square
The maximum localized construction and operational emissions associated with the Heritage Square site are provided in Table 4.1-15: Unmitigated Localized Construction and Operational Emissions – Heritage Square of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.1-15 of the Draft EIR, the unmitigated daily localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the localized impacts associated with the Heritage Square site would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-35 through

4.1-37.)

4. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-38 through 4.1-39.) Explanation: As shown in Tables 4.1-12 through 4.1-15 of the Draft EIR, localized construction and operational emissions of the four Housing Sites would result in emissions below the localized significance thresholds. Moreover, the proposed developments would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 which would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD, while almost any source may emit objectionable odors, some land uses are more likely to produce odors because of their operation. Land uses more likely to produce odors include agriculture, chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding manufacturing, landfills, refineries, rendering plants, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element does not approve developments of any kind and in the event identified Housing Sites are development, the Housing Sites would not contain any active manufacturing activities and would not convert current agricultural land to residential land uses. Objectionable odors would not be emitted by the proposed residential and commercial uses.

Any unforeseen odors generated by the development of the Housing Sites will be controlled in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 402 which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that harm, endanger, or annoy individuals or the public; endanger the comfort, health or safety of individuals or the public; or cause injury or damage to business or property. Failure to comply with Rule 402 could subject the offending facility to possible fines and/or operational limitations in an approved odor control or odor abatement plan.

Therefore, development of the Housing Sites would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-38 through 4.1-39.) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 28 through 29.) Explanation: The City of Signal Hill General Plan Environmental Resources Element (1986) states that no species of plant or wildlife currently designated as rare or threatened has been located or is expected to occur within the city. While the Environmental Resources Element was published in 1986, this statement is still relevant, as no known habitat has been disturbed or removed in the last 30 years by the conversion of undeveloped land and oil fields and associated oil refinery and production land uses to urban development. Therefore, since the proposed project would not eliminate any native wildlife habitat or sensitive plant communities and would not affect any important habitat linkages that could support sensitive species, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.

Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any developments. The identified Housing Sites are highly disturbed sites containing scattered ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees. There are no native plant communities or any natural or man-made water features within or near the four project sites. The lands surrounding these sites are developed with streets, light industrial, educational, residential, and commercial uses, which have disturbed and replaced natural habitat. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 28 through 29.)

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 29.)
Explanation: The General Plan Environmental Resources Element (1986) does not identify any sensitive natural communities on or within the vicinity of the Housing Sites. There are no rivers or streams and no riparian habitat or any other kind of sensitive natural community in or within the immediate vicinity of the identified Housing Sites. The Housing Sites are characterized by barren ground surfaces, oil wells, pipelines, and related devices associated with a soil vapor removal system, scattered ruderal vegetation, and a few ornamental trees that primarily line the perimeter. For these reasons, anticipated future development would have no impact on riparian habitat or sensitive natural habitat. (Initial Study, p. 29.)

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 29.)
Explanation: Wetlands are defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. There is no wetland habitat on or in the immediate vicinity of the identified Housing Sites. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (2018) National Wetland Inventory shows that the nearest wetland habitat occurs along the Los Angeles River, approximately 4 miles south of the Walnut Bluff, Heritage Square, and Town Center Northwest Housing Sites, and approximately 9 miles south of the Orange Bluff site. Accordingly, the anticipated housing development would have no impact on wetlands. (Initial Study, p. 29.)

4. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 29 through 30.) Explanation: The Housing Sites have been disturbed by past oil extraction activities, and the surrounding area is fully urbanized, dominated by buildings and other structures, pavement, and ornamental vegetation such as turf grass, trees, and shrubs. There are no forms of natural wildlife habitat, no rivers, lakes or streams, and no native wildlife nursery sites in this area. The highly disturbed local landscape does not provide suitable habitat to support native resident or migratory fish or wildlife movement. While there are ornamental trees within the existing parking lot, those trees would be replaced by additional trees as part of the proposed landscape plan. As such, anticipated future development at each Housing Site would not remove any valuable biological habitat that currently supports movement of fish or wildlife, nor would it inhibit, disturb, or alter the existing patterns of wildlife movement that occur elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on movement of wildlife species. (Initial Study, pp. 29 through 30.)

5. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 30.)
Explanation: The City of Signal Hill does have a street tree ordinance which establishes standards for the planting, removal, replacement, and maintenance of all City street trees in accordance with tree species recommendations contained in the Street Tree Master Plan. The e Housing Sites does not contain any public right of way and would not impact any street trees. Additionally, the Housing Sites are not located within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, anticipated future development at identified Housing Sites would not conflict with any City of Signal Hill regulations protecting biological resources, nor would the project conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans. For these reasons, the proposed project would have no impact. (Initial Study, p. 30.)

6. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 30.)
Explanation: The City of Signal Hill does not have any existing conservation plans protecting biological resources. No portions of the City are located within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, anticipated future residential development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with any City of Signal Hill regulations protecting biological resources, nor would the future developments conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans. As such, the proposed Project would have no impacts regarding conflict with provisions of adopted conservation plans. (Initial Study, p. 30.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-10.) Explanation: Based on the records search, no known historical or prehistoric resources were identified on or near the Housing Site or within the 1/2 mile buffer surrounding the Housing Sites. The Cultural Resources Inventory records search found eighteen previous studies have been conducted within a halfmile of the Project area and a single study (LA-03651) had included the entire Project area within its radius. The records search identified five resources within a half-mile buffer of the Housing Sites including: two prehistoric sites (Shell Midden), and three historic buildings (Lomita Gasoline Company/Petrolane Office Building, a Single Family Residence, and Lomita Gasoline Company/Petrolane Compressor House). None of the above-mentioned resources were identified as listed or eligible for listing within the CRHR or NRHR. Nor were they within or adjacent to the Housing Sites.

A review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs was conducted and found that all four Housing Sites included petroleum wells and associated infrastructure dating back to the early 1930s. The City’s Environmental Resources Element recognizes oil development as a historical resource, stating that “Remaining derricks and towers are living reminders of these past events” and the Alamitos #1 Discovery Well is a designated historical monument. However, the features on the housing sites have mostly been removed or abandoned and what remains do not represent unique historic events. As such, the Project would not have an adverse effect on the significance of a historical resource. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-10.)

2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 32.) Explanation: The Housing Sites are located in an urbanized area and has been subject to grading and development in the past. It is unlikely that intact human remains exist on the site due to the highly disturbed nature of the sites and a lack of known burial sites at the Housing Sites. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 state that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of identification as human. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and provide recommendations as to the treatment of the remains to the landowner. Any soil disturbing activities from project development would be required to adhere to existing laws regarding the discovery of human remains, which would minimize potential impacts to human remains to less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 32.) F. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-18.) Explanation: Development of the Housing Sites would consume energy during construction and operational activities. Sources of energy for these activities include electricity usage, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuels such as diesel and gasoline. The analysis below includes the Housing Site developments’ energy requirements and energy use efficiencies by fuel type for Housing Site construction and operations. For purposes of this analysis, Housing Site maintenance would include activities such as painting, landscaping, and architectural coatings. Energy usage related to Housing Site maintenance activities are included as part of operations energy analysis.

Construction Impacts
During construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used for dust control, and on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. As discussed below, construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Construction would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment within the Housing Sites, construction worker travel, haul trips, and delivery trips.

As shown in Table 4.3-1: Summary of Energy Use During Construction of the Draft EIR and discussed below, a total of approximately 4,054 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, 310,232 gallons of diesel fuel, and 117,173 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed during construction of the Housing Sites.

Electricity
During construction, electricity would be consumed to supply and convey water for dust control and, on a limited basis, may be used to power lighting, electronic equipment, and other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Electricity would be supplied to the Housing Sites by SCE distribution infrastructure and would be obtained from existing substations and electrical lines in and around the Housing Sites.

As shown in Table 4.3-1 of the Draft EIR, the total electricity used during construction is approximately 4,054 kWh. However, it is assumed that the Housing Sites would not be developed concurrently. As such, the maximum electricity anticipated to be used at one time during construction of the Housing Sites is approximately 1,087 kWh. Moreover, the electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. When not in use, electric equipment would be powered off so as to avoid unnecessary energy consumption. Additionally, Title 24 requirements would apply to construction lighting if duration were to exceed 120 days, which includes limits on the wattage allowed per specified area for energy conservation. Due to the relatively short duration of the construction process, and the fact that the extent of electricity consumption is inherent to construction projects of this size and nature, electricity consumption impacts would not be considered excessive or substantial with respect to regional supplies. Therefore, construction of the Housing Sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of electricity and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas.

Accordingly, natural gas would likely not be needed to support construction activities; thus, there would be little to no demand generated by construction. Therefore, construction of the Housing Sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of natural gas and impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation Energy
Housing Site construction would consume energy in the form of petroleumbased fuels associated with use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Housing Sites, construction worker travel to and from the Housing Sites, and delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., for deliveries of construction supplies and materials).

The petroleum-based fuel use summary provided in Table 4.3-1 of the Draft EIR represents the amount of transportation energy that could potentially be consumed during construction based on a conservative set of assumptions. As shown, on- and off-road vehicles would consume an estimated 427,405 gallons of petroleum (117,173 gallons of gasoline and 310,232 gallons of diesel fuel) throughout the Housing Sites’ construction periods. For purposes of comparison, the EIA forecasts a national oil supply of 20.39 million barrels (mb) per day in 2022, which is the earliest year construction could begin on any given Housing Site.33 This equates to approximately 7,472 mb per year or 312,579 million gallons (mg) per year.

Construction of the Housing Sites would account for less than 0.01 percent of the projected annual oil supply in 2022.

Due to the relatively short duration of the construction process, and the fact that the extent of fuel consumption is inherent to construction projects of this size and nature, fuel consumption impacts would not be considered excessive or substantial with respect to regional fuel supplies. The energy demands during construction would be typical of construction projects of this size and would not necessitate additional energy facilities or distribution infrastructure. Construction of the Housing Sites will also comply with Sections 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires the idling of all diesel-fueled, commercial vehicles be limited to five minutes at any location. As a result, construction of the Housing Sites would not result in inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation resources during construction. Accordingly, transportation resource demands during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
During operation of the Housing Sites, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes associated with the proposed residential uses, including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC); refrigeration; lighting; and the use of electronics, equipment, and machinery. Energy would also be consumed during operation of the Housing Sites in the form of water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips, among others. As shown in Table 4.3-2: Summary of Annual Energy Use During Operation of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ energy demand would be approximately 1,533,221 kWh of electricity per year and 4,516,770 kBTU of natural gas per year or 11,933 cf (0.01 MMcf) per day.34 The combined uses at the sites would consume 31,996 gallons of diesel fuel per year and 162,831 gallons of gasoline per year. These calculations incorporate regulatory requirements established by the California Building Code related to water and energy conservation, water quality.

Electricity
As shown in Table 4.3-2 of the Draft EIR, buildout of the Housing Sites would result in a projected increase in the on-site demand for electricity, totaling 4,603,393 kWh (4.6 GWh) per year. SCE estimates that electricity consumption within its planning area will vary between approximately 120,000 GWh annually by 2022, to approximately 128,000 GWh annually by 2030.35 The Housing Site electricity usage would account for less than

0.01 percent of the annual consumption in SCE’s planning area. In addition to complying with Title 24 and CALGreen, operation of the Housing Sites would provide means for indirect energy savings, such as permitting individual solar panels to be applied to the proposed residential uses. This would be installed in compliance with Title 24 Section 110.10, which includes mandatory regulations for solar-ready buildings and would not preclude the use of alternate energy sources. Therefore, operation of the Housing Sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of electricity and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
As shown in Table 4.3-2 of the Draft EIR, with compliance with Title 24 standards and applicable CALGreen requirements, buildout of the Housing Sites is projected to generate an on-site demand for natural gas totaling 9,575,853 kBTU per year or 26,235 cf (0.03 MMcf) per day.37 Based on the 2020 California Gas Report, LBER is expected to supply 26.3 MMcf of natural gas per day between the years 2022 to 2035.38 Operation of the Housing Sites would account for approximately 0.1 percent of the daily forecasted consumption in LBER’s planning area. Per Title 24, new appliances associated with the proposed uses would be efficient and reduce unnecessary and wasteful consumption of natural gas during operation.

Therefore, operation of the Housing Sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of natural gas and impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation Energy
As shown in Table 4.3-2 of the Draft EIR above, buildout of the Housing Sites is projected to generate a net demand of 703,923 gallons of transportation fuel. For purposes of comparison, the EIA forecasts a national oil supply of 17.7 mb/d from 2022 to 2030.39 This equates to approximately 6,461 mb/y or 271,362 mg/y.40 Operation of the Housing Sites would account for less than 0.01 percent of the projected annual oil supply between 2022 and 2030.

During operation, traffic associated with the Housing Sites would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels due to vehicular travel to and from the developed sites. Vehicular use during operation would be limited to those necessary to ensure the function of the residential developments, including trash pickup, commutes by employees of the development, commutes by regular upkeep and repair crews, and commutes by USPS personnel. Activities such as trash pickup would be consolidated to limit the number of necessary trips made by local waste collectors. During the operational lifetime of the Housing Site developments, newer vehicles sold on the market would be required to comply with CAFE fuel economy standards expected to incrementally take effect. This would effectively reduce transportation energy use by commuters and maintenance crew at the development. Accordingly, fuel consumption is anticipated to decrease each year through implementation of regulation that require higher energy efficiencies and higher efficient and alternative fueled vehicles. As the operation activities would be limited to those necessary for the function and upkeep for the development, and more efficient vehicles are expected in future years of Housing Sites’ operation, operation of the Housing Sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-18.)
Summary of Energy Resource Consumption
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F recommends a quantification of the Housing Site developments’ energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the development’s life cycle, including construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal. The developments’ energy requirements were calculated based on land use inputs from CalEEMod for electricity and natural gas usage. The calculations also considered energy efficiency measures, such as Title 24, 2016 CALGreen, and vehicle fuel economy standards. As energy consumption during construction activities would be relatively negligible, development of the Housing Sites is not anticipated to affect regional energy consumption in years during the construction period. In summary, energy consumption during Housing Site construction and operations in the context of regional supplies would be relatively negligible and energy requirements are within SCE’s and LBER’s forecasted supply delivery capacity.

Additionally, electricity demand during construction and operation of the Housing Site developments would have a negligible effect on the overall capacity of SCE’s power grid base peak demand conditions and LBER’s forecasted demand. Moreover, the Housing Sites’ gas and diesel fuel demand related to vehicle travel and on-site operations would account for a small percentage of the forecasted gas and diesel consumption.

Trucks and equipment used during proposed construction activities would comply with CARB’s anti-idling regulations, as well as the In-Use OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation. Although these regulations are focused on reducing criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with these regulations would also result in a more efficient use of construction-related fuel consumption. In addition, during Housing Site operations, vehicles traveling to and from the sites would comply with CAFE fuel economy standards as well as with Pavley standards and LCFS, which are designed to reduce vehicle GHG emissions but would also result in fuel savings in addition to CAFE standards. Therefore, Housing Site construction and operational activities would comply with existing energy standards with regards to transportation fuel consumption.

In terms of transportation-related energy usage, the Housing Sites would be consistent with the energy efficiency policies emphasized by the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Specifically, the Housing Sites would provide housing in close proximity to public transit. Per SCAG, all Housing Sites are located within, or partially within a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) and are served by existing Long Beach Transit (LBT) bus lines along Orange Avenue and E. Willow Street.41 As a result, these locational attributes create opportunities for reductions in both the number and length of vehicle trips. These reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled would reduce gas and diesel fuel consumption. Moreover, during the operational lifetime of the Housing Sites, newer vehicles sold on the market would be required to comply with CAFE fuel economy standards expected to incrementally take effect. Accordingly, fuel consumption is anticipated to decrease each year through implementation of regulations that require higher energy efficiencies.

Based on the above, development of the Housing Sites would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-18.)

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 through 4.3-20.) Explanation: The proposed Project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements for the design of new buildings, including the provisions set forth in the CALGreen Code and California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which have been incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code.

Moreover, the forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be an estimated 1,355 persons at the completion of 517 dwelling units.42 Including the forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, the City’s population would total approximately 12,955 persons. The City’s forecast population of approximately 12,955 persons would be a less than 5% increase over the SCAG’s forecast population of 12,500 persons by 2045. Additionally, the housing unit development facilitated by the 2021- 2029 Housing Element update would be put in place, in part, to accommodate for an existing shortage of housing for the existing population in the region and within the City limits. As such, the development of housing units facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update is not anticipated to induce new population growth. As such, the increase in population at full build out of housing units facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be comparable to the 2045 SCAG population forecast. The proposed Project is also consistent with the types, intensity and patterns of land use envisioned for this region.

Additionally, the proposed Project and the development of the identified Housing Sites would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals and policies which directly and indirectly relate to energy conservation, such as encouraging energy efficiency where possible and encouraging land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation, respectively. In terms of transportation-related energy conservation, the Housing Site developments would be consistent with the energy efficiency policies emphasized by 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Development of the Housing Sites include the development of residential uses in areas already served by transit. Per SCAG, the Housing Sites are located within an HQTA and are served by existing LBT bus lines along Orange Avenue and E. Willow Street. Moreover, the LA Metro Willow Street station is within the vicinity of the Housing Sites. As such, the locations of the Housing Sites encourage a variety of transportation options which would reduce VMTs and transportation-related fuel. During the operational lifetime of the proposed Project, newer vehicles sold on the market would be required to comply with CAFE fuel economy standards expected to incrementally take effect.

As such, development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with the energy goals and policies in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-19 through 4.3-20.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-14.) Explanation: The City is located in a seismically active region (as is the entire Los Angeles Basin). In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was adopted to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. A list of cities and counties subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones is available on the California Department of Conservation’s website.

Trenching that shadows the portion of the property within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone was conducted for the candidate housing site near the Cherry Hill fault (see Appendix H.1: Orange Bluff Geohazards Report and Appendix H.2: Orange Bluff Geohazards Report Summary of the Draft EIR). The trench showed that there are no Holocene-active faults projecting into the site or within 50 feet to the southwest of the site. A few minor fractures were observed in the deeper section of the trench, but these did not extend upward into the soil section and are thus not considered active.

Additional trenches were excavated to the south and west of the candidate housing site. These trenches demonstrated that the Cherry Hill fault is approximately 250 feet to the southwest of the site.

The Applicant is required to comply with the California Building Code and Signal Hill Municipal Code Section 15.40 regarding the construction of earthquake resistant buildings which would mitigate foreseeable effects of strong seismic activities in the region. As part of the plan check review process, a soils engineering report that provides design recommendations for the proposed development would be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. A California registered Professional Geologist would observe the geologic conditions during grading to verify the conclusions of the fault investigation. If, during grading, faults are observed, the City’s Geological Reviewer would be notified immediately and a field meeting to discuss these observations would be held. A final as-graded geological report that summarizes the observations made during construction would be prepared and submitted to the City’s Building Official. All habitable structures would be designed with stiffened foundation systems to accommodate minor secondary fracturing associated with ground shaking.

Based on this information, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact exposing people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
As described above, the City lies within a region with several active faults and several blind thrust faults. These faults are capable of producing ground shaking from an earthquake. However, there are no active faults known to exist within the Project Site. Since the City lies within a region with several active faults and several blind thrust faults, earthquakes capable of producing ground shaking are anticipated. A major earthquake produced along any of the regional fault systems has the potential to produce strong ground shaking in the City.

The proposed candidate housing sites would likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during their design life, given the proximately to major faults in the Southern California Region. The proposed candidate housing sites would eventually increase the amount of development on site, thereby increasing the number of residents residing in a seismically active region. Since the State is generally located in a seismically active region, all new developments in the State are required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the California Building Code. The 2019 California Building Code incorporates the latest seismic design standards for structural loads and materials as well as provisions from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to reduce potential loss from earthquakes and ensure safety of residents on site. Incorporation of seismic design standards would strengthen the structural integrity of the proposed residential buildings and reduce the seismic ground shaking impacts to residents. Local seismic safety requirements contained in the Signal Hill Municipal Code, as well as the applicable recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigations are required by SHMC Section 15.04.090 prior to the issuance of construction permits. All building construction associated with the proposed Project would be subject to the City’s existing construction regulations, including the California Building Code as adopted by SHMC in order to minimize any potential impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Building designs aligned with existing regulations, codes, and the incorporation of recommendations from the geotechnical investigations’ report during City’s plan check would reduce seismic shaking impacts to future residents to less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading?
Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid.

Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.

Groundwater underneath the proposed candidate housing sites is more than 50 feet below the ground surface and the sites are also underlain by relatively dense materials of the Lakewood and San Pedro Formations. The site is not located within a mapped California Geological Survey liquefaction hazard zone. As such, liquefaction is unlikely to occur at the candidate housing sites and liquefaction and lateral spreading impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Each candidate housing site is relatively flat to gently sloping and none are located immediately adjacent steep terrain. The sites are not located within an area identified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as having potential for seismic slope instability. As such, geologic hazards associated with landslides at the proposed candidate housing sites are considered low and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-12 through

4.4-14.)

2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 through 4.4-15.) Explanation: Much of proposed candidate housing sites are covered with sandy soils and the relatively flat to very gently sloping terrain makes the sites susceptible to slight soil erosion during periods of significant rainfall. The sandy deposits of the Inglewood and San Pedro Formations underlie the Housing Sites. If exposed at the ground surface or in cut-slopes, soils on the Housing Sites could be susceptible to rills, gullies, and general erosion by running water or strong winds. Grading of the proposed Housing Sites would create a temporary increase in the potential for erosion during construction.

The Signal Hill Municipal Code Chapter 12.16 establishes the framework for the City to control erosion through the management of stormwater and urban runoff. In part, this chapter requires that prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit for a new development or redevelopment project, the City must evaluate the proposed project’s erosion and grading requirements, including the appropriate wet weather erosion control plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan, or other plans consistent with countywide development construction guidance provisions to control erosion. These plans are required to demonstrate that stormwater runoff containing sediment is reduced to the maximum extent practicable and that best management practices apply and are required from the time of commencement of construction until receipt of a certificate of occupancy.

In addition, construction activities are required to comply with existing erosion control requirements, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion through a variety of dust control measures such as covering soil stockpiles, watering exposed soils several times a day, ceasing grading during high winds, and providing temporary soil binders.

Housing development resulting from the project must also comply with the conditions of a General Construction Permit, administered by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which would reduce water erosion by requiring best management water quality control practices during construction (e.g., using berms or drainage ditches to divert water around the site; preventing sediment from migrating off the site by using temporary swales, silt fences, or gravel rolls). Compliance with these existing regulatory standards would generally avoid or reduce potential erosion impacts during construction to less than significant.

Once housing development resulting from the project is completed, the currently exposed soils across the project site would be replaced with impervious and landscaped surfaces, which would substantially reduce and, to a large extent, eliminate erosion potential as compared with existing site conditions. With adherence to the mandatory regulations to reduce and control erosion during construction, impacts in relation to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-14 through 4.4-15.)

3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 through 4.4-17.) Explanation: The Housing Sites would not be located in an area susceptible to seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading. The Housing Sites are not located in an area designated by the City or State as being prone to landslides. The Housing Sites are within a land subsidence area caused by oil extraction.7
Landslides (On- or Off-Site) and Lateral Spreading
A landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. Landslides are a type of mass wasting, which denotes any down-slope movement of soil and rock under the direct influence of gravity.

Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of the earth due to ground shaking. Topography on each Housing Site is relatively flat to gently sloping and none are located immediately adjacent to steep terrain. The Housing Sites are not located within an area identified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as having potential for seismic slope instability. In the absence of significant ground slopes, the potential for seismically induced landslides and lateral spreading to affect the Housing Sites is very low. Local seismic safety requirements contained in the SHMC, as well as the applicable recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigations required by the City’s plan check review process would minimize seismic-related hazards such as on- or off-site landslides and lateral spreading prior to issuance of construction permits.

Compliance with existing building codes and required studies during design and construction of the future housing developments would reduce seismicrelated hazards such as on- or off-site landslides and lateral spreading for future residents to a less than significant level.

Subsidence and Liquefaction
As discussed under threshold IV.GEO-1, groundwater underneath the proposed Housing Sites is more than 50 feet below the ground surface and the sites are also underlain by relatively dense materials of the Lakewood and San Pedro Formations. The Housing Sites are not located within a mapped California Geological Survey liquefaction hazard zone. As discussed above, the Housing Sites are within a land subsidence area caused by oil extraction. Provided that oil field reservoir management strategies that include subsidence relief continue to be employed in the area, potential ground subsidence beneath the Housing Sites that could result in damage to future construction is considered low.

Developments in California are required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the California Building Code. The 2019 California Building Code incorporates the latest seismic design standards for structural loads and materials as well as provisions from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to reduce potential loss from earthquakes and ensure safety of residents on site. Local seismic safety requirements contained in the SHMC, as well as the applicable recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigations required by the City’s plan check review process would minimize seismic-related hazards such as subsidence and liquefaction prior to issuance of construction permits.

Compliance with existing building codes and required studies during design and construction of the Project would reduce seismic-related hazards such as subsidence and liquefaction for future residents to a less than significant level.

Seismically Induced Slope Instability and Collapse
Seismically induced landslides or slope collapse are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The Housing Sites are not within any earthquake-induced landslide areas due the relatively flat ground conditions of the Site topography. In the absence of significant ground slopes, the potential for seismically induced landslides and collapse to affect the Housing Sites is considered to be very low; and local seismic safety requirements contained in the SHMC, as well as the applicable recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigations required by the City’s plan check review process, would minimize seismic-related hazards, such as seismically induced slope instability or collapse prior to issuance of construction permits. Compliance with existing building codes and required studies during design and construction of the Project would reduce seismic-related hazards such as seismically induced slope instability and collapse for future residents to a less than significant level.

In conclusion, local seismic safety requirements contained in the SHMC, as well as the applicable recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigations required by the City’s plan check review process, would minimize seismic-related hazards prior to issuance of construction permits.

Compliance with existing building codes and required studies during design and construction of the future housing developments would reduce seismicrelated hazards such as on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse for future residents to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 through 4.4-17.)

4. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.) Explanation: During inclement weather and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the soil and causes the soil to heave (expansion). When drying occurs the soils shrink (contraction). Repeated cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on grade, and foundations to crack. Soil expansion potential is considered very low to low based on the expansion characteristic of the near-surface soils on the Housing Sites. A project-specific geotechnical study that addresses the geologic and geotechnical conditions as they pertain to the proposed design will be required as part of the standard plan check process in accordance with the California Building Code. Compliance with this process would ensure impacts were less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.)

5. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
Explanation: The Project Site is located in a developed portion of the City and is served by a wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment system operated by the City. All the wastewater generated by the future housing developments would be discharged into the City’s municipal sewer system. No septic systems or other soil-based wastewater disposal systems would be part of the proposed housing developments. Therefore, the proposed housing developments would have no impact related to soils incapable of supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-21 through 4.5-25.) Explanation: Construction
Construction activity impacts are short in duration, so they contribute a relatively small portion of the total lifetime GHG emissions of a development. The combustion of fossil fuels in construction equipment results in GHG emissions of CO2 and smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

Emissions of GHG would also result from the combustion of fossil fuels from vendor trucks delivering materials and construction worker vehicles commuting to and from the Housing Sites. Typically, light-duty and medium-duty automobiles and trucks would be used for worker trips and heavy-duty trucks would be used for vendor trips. The vast majority of motor vehicles used for worker trips rely on gasoline as an energy source while motor vehicles used for vendor trips would primarily rely on diesel as an energy source. In addition, GHG emissions-reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. Therefore, in its Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds, the SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies.

Construction assumptions used in the analysis of GHG emissions conservatively assume that the Housing Site developments would be constructed with the most intensive activities occurring on a daily basis. The order of development for the Housing Sites is currently undetermined. As such, it was conservatively assumed any of the Housing Sites could be developed first. The total emissions from construction of the individual Housing Site are shown in Table 4.5-3: Construction Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR.

As recommended by SCAQMD, the total GHG construction emissions were amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the Housing Sites (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine annual construction emissions estimate that can be added to the Housing Site’s operational emissions) in order to determine the annual GHG emissions inventory.

Operation
Emissions from mobile and area sources and indirect emissions from energy and water use, wastewater, as well as waste management would occur every year after buildout. This section addresses operational GHG emissions.

Area Sources
The area source GHG emissions included in this analysis result primarily from natural gas fireplaces with additional emissions from landscapingrelated fuel combustion sources, such as lawn mowers. GHG emissions due to natural gas combustion in buildings other than from fireplaces are excluded from area sources since they are included in the emissions associated with building energy use.

The GHG emissions for the Housing Sites were calculated using CalEEMod. All fireplaces were assumed to be natural gas burning, based on SCAQMD Rule 445. CalEEMod defaults were used for landscape maintenance emissions. Area source emissions are shown in Table 4.5-4:

Area Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.5-4 of the Draft EIR, combined Housing Site emissions would result in approximately 160 MTCO2e per year from area sources.

Energy Sources
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings when electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; when this occurs in a building, it is a direct emission source associated with that building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels. When electricity is used in a building, the electricity generation typically takes place off-site at the power plant; electricity use in a building generally causes emission in an indirect manner.

Estimated emissions from the combustion of natural gas and other fuels from the implementation of the Housing Sites are calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of the energy usage by applicable emissions factors chosen by the utility company.

GHG emissions from electricity use are directly dependent on the electricity utility provider. In this case, GHG intensity factors for Southern California Edison were selected in CalEEMod. Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building, such as plug-in appliances. CalEEMod calculates energy use from systems covered by Title 24 (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] system, water heating system, and lighting system); energy use from lighting; and energy use from office equipment, appliances, plug-ins, and other sources not covered by Title 24 or lighting.

Energy source emissions are shown in Table 4.5-5: Energy Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ operation would generate 1,162 MTCO2e per year from energy source emissions.

Mobile Sources Emissions
Vehicle trips generated by growth within the vicinity of the Housing Sites would result in operational emissions through the combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 emissions were determined based on the trip rates from the Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix H of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table 4.5-6: Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ mobile source emissions would result in 5,843 MTCO2e per year.

Solid Waste Emissions
Solid waste generation and associated emissions are calculated using default data found in CalEEMod for the proposed land uses. Disposal of organic waste in landfills can lead to the generation of CH4, a potent GHG.

By generating solid waste, the proposed Project would contribute to the emission of fugitive CH4 from landfills, as well as CO2 and N2O from the operation of trash collection vehicles. As shown in Table 4.5-7: Solid Waste Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, combined Housing Sites’ GHG emissions resulting from solid waste would forecast to be 204 MTCO2e per year.

Water Consumption and Wastewater Emissions
California’s water conveyance system is energy intensive, with electricity used to pump and treat water. Development of the Housing Sites would result in indirect GHG emissions due to water consumption and wastewater generation. Water consumption and wastewater generation, and their associated emissions, are calculated based on the square footage of the proposed uses, using CalEEMod data. As shown in Table 4.5-8: Water Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ water and wastewater GHG emissions would forecast to be 216 MTCO2e per year.

Total Emissions
As shown in Table 4.5-9: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Housing Site developments are forecasted to generate a total of 7,694 MTCO2e per year. The Housing Sites would incorporate energy and water efficiency design features to enhance efficiency in all aspects of the buildings’ life cycle based on the latest CALGreen and Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency standards for new construction.

In the absence of any adopted, numeric threshold, the City evaluates the significance of the Housing Sites potential GHG emissions consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(2). As such, a significant impact would occur if the proposed Project conflicts with the applicable policies and/or regulations outlined in CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s 2016 Green City Annual Progress Report, or the City’s General Plan. Development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with any of the applicable policies and/or regulations outlined in these plans. As such, impacts related to direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-21 through 4.5-25.)

2. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25.)) Explanation: Compliance with applicable GHG emission reduction plans would result in a less than significant project-level and cumulative impact. Since adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve or propose any developments, no conflict with existing plans, policies, or regulations with reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would occur. The following section describes the extent the future Housing Site developments would comply with or exceeds the performance-based standards included in the regulations and policies outlined in CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or the City’s General Plan. Key regulations incorporated into this analysis include California Code of Regulations, Title 20 and Title 24.

Climate Change Scoping Plan
Table 4.5-10: Climate Change Scoping Plan Project Consistency Analysis of the Draft EIR contains a list of GHG-reducing strategies set forth in the Climate Change Scoping Plan that are applicable to the proposed Project.

The analysis presented in Table 4.5-10 of the Draft EIR describes the proposed Project’s compliance and consistency with these strategies as outlined in the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.5-10 of the Draft EIR, development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with the policies included in the Climate Change Scoping Plan.

SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The SCAG RTP/SCS46 is the primary planning document for regional transportation infrastructure in the greater Los Angeles area. With a horizon year of 2045, this long-range plan, required by the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS identifies strategies and investments to support expanded housing choices for all income levels in areas with a range of transportation choices. Conclusions within the document stated that a comprehensive approach is needed in order to identify housing opportunities within Priority Growth Areas (PGAs) such as job centers, Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) found within half a mile of a major transit station, and High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) which include generally walkable transit oriented areas within one half-mile or a 15 minute walk of a well serviced transit stop. Additionally, under AB 101 (2019) legislation, SCAG is eligible for approximately $47 million from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

These funds will be used to develop a Regional Housing Strategy Framework and provide planning resources, grants and services to jurisdictions to implement their 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, which is supportive of Connect SoCal goals and policies. According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the Housing Site developments would be consistent with the Regional Housing Strategy Framework which places an emphasis on affordable infill housing development within transit-oriented neighborhoods. The four Housing Sites are entirely located within High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) according to SCAG which is considered a generally walkable transit village or corridor and is within one half-mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor within 15-minute or less service frequency during peak hours. The Housing Sites are served by existing Long Beach Transit (LBT) bus lines along Orange Avenue and E. Willow Street. Moreover, the LA Metro Willow Street station is within the vicinity of the Housing Sites. With the development of the Housing Sites, a total of 385 very low, low, and moderate units would be create within the HQTA as well as an additional 339 above moderate units. The SCAG RHNA allocation for the City identified 329 very low, low, and moderate units with 188 above moderate income units. The Housing Site developments would sufficiently allocate the SCAG RHNA identified number of units for each affordability level as well as additional units and would be consistent with the goals of the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS.

For these reasons, the proposed Project and the development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

City of Signal Hill General Plan
The adopted General Plan is a blueprint for future development and focuses on the long-term goals of the city or county. The City’s General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources, Housing, Noise, and Safety. Development of the Housing Sites would be consistent with the General Plan, including policies and programs adopted to address environmental impacts, after the proposed amendments to the General Plan, designation map, and the zoning code. The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the development of the Housing Sites would not remove or modify any policies or measures from the General Plan that are intended for environmental protection and would not conflict with any General Plan policies or measures that are intended for environmental protection. The four Housing Sites identified within the City would require General Plan amendments in order for future development to occur. The General Plan Designation Amendments would meet the objectives outlined within the Land Use Element to establish more residential uses and also meet the philosophy, character, and quality of the existing land uses.

Conclusion As shown above, the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or the City’s General Plan. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-26 through 4.5-30.)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through

4.6-19.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly construct new housing in the City but would promote and facilitate development of new residential land uses. However, implementation of the Housing Element Update (HEU) would facilitate new residential construction in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Future construction on the Housing Sites would involve site clearing; bioremediation of soils and subsurface materials; demolition of previous structures and piping remnants; daylighting and leak testing of oil wells; construction of new residential buildings; and the installation of utilities and landscaping. These activities may require the transport of contaminated soil and the use of hazardous substances during construction. In addition, construction activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants, paints and paint thinners, glues, cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents) and possibly pesticides and herbicides.

Future residential land uses would not be expected to transport, use, store or dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials.

Operation
Operation and maintenance of the proposed residential Project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Further, the types and amounts of materials that would be used in connection with the proposed Project would be typical of those used in residential neighborhoods and neighborhood uses, such as surface and floor cleaning products utilized for routine janitorial cleaning procedures. All potentially hazardous materials to be used during construction and operation of the Housing Sites would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in accordance with all applicable standards and regulations, including but not limited to, those set forth by the federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Acts. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through implementation and compliance with these existing laws and regulations.

Operational impacts through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation measure is required. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-19.)

2. Accident or Upset
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? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-20 through

4.6-21.)
Explanation: Operation
Occupancy and use of the residential units would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and would not emit hazardous emissions. Routine maintenance and upkeep of the residential development would involve handling of small quantities of hazardous materials for activities including cleaning and local upgrades. However, handling of such materials would follow manufacturer’s instructions and properly stored when not in use. Therefore, potential impacts associated with upset or accident conditions would be less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21.)

3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 4.6-21.) Explanation: There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the proposed Housing Sites. The nearest school is Signal Hill Elementary School, approximately 0.5 miles south/southwest of the Housing Sites. The Project would introduce residential land uses to the Housing Sites. This land use does not generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes. The residential land uses may involve limited transport, storage, use and disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials such as chemical cleaning agents. No special permits would be required for such limited use of common cleaning agents. The proposed restaurant may use and dispose of grease and food oils, which are not considered hazardous but do require special handling and as such would be collected in separate grease interceptors and removed by contracted haulers for transport to appropriate disposal sites. The residential land uses would involve the regular handling of minor quantities of common household chemical agents and related wastes; however, these types of wastes are typical and do not represent a hazardous materials or waste impact. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in relation to this issue. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 4.6-21.)

4. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: No impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-21 through 4.6-22.) Explanation: California Government Code Section 65962.5 specifies lists of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated. While Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a list, many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992 and information regarding the Cortese List is now compiled on the websites of the DTSC, the State Water Resources Control Board, and CalEPA. The DTSC maintains the EnviroStor database, which includes sites on the Cortese List and also identifies potentially hazardous sites where cleanup actions or extensive investigations are planned or have occurred. The database provides a listing of federal Superfund sites, State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, and school cleanup sites. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-21 through 4.6-22.) The EnviroStor database is maintained by DTSC and provides access to detailed information on hazardous waste permitted sites and corrective action facilities, as well as existing site cleanup information. EnviroStor also provides information on investigation, cleanup, permitting, and/or corrective actions that are planned, being conducted, or have been completed under DTSC’s oversight. The RWQCB maintains the GeoTracker database which manages sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California. The GeoTracker database includes sites that require cleanup, are under current investigation/remediation, or have been closed with a status not requiring further investigation.

A geographical search for hazardous materials sites, as defined in Government Code Section 66962.5, was conducted based on a review of these databases The addresses associated with the proposed Housing Sites are not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Housing Sites are not located in an area with current significant hazardous materials sites and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact would occur. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-21 through 4.6-22.)

5. Public Airports
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 4.6-22.) Explanation: The nearest public use airport is Long Beach Municipal Airport, located less than 1 mile to the northeast of the Housing Sites. The project would introduce new residential land uses. The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission establishes Airport Influence Areas (AIA) to identify areas likely to be impacted by noise and flight activity created by aircraft operations at and airport. The Housing Sites are not within the AIA for Long Beach Municipal Airport (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission 2003). Thus, people living or working on the future Housing Sites site would not be exposed to any safety hazards associated with the operation of the airport. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 4.6-22.)

6. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: No impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-22 through 4.6-23.) Explanation: Both the County of Los Angeles and the City of Signal Hill have plans that include operational concepts, describe responsibilities, and outline procedures for emergency response. The County has adopted an Operational Area Emergency Response Plan, which describes the planned responses to emergencies associated with natural and man-made disasters and technological incidents. The Signal Hill (2018e) Hazard Mitigation Plan documents strategies and approaches designed to reduce loss of life and property in the event of a disaster or emergency. Key action items in the plan include improving communication and strengthening emergency operations by increasing collaboration and coordination among the various agencies and organizations involved in emergency planning, identifying funding to implement prevention plans and programs, and continuing the education and outreach efforts.

Project implementation at the Housing Sites would not interfere with the implementation of either of these plans because the proposed Project does not introduce any new land uses not considered in the implementation of the plans and it does not place the proposed land uses in an area that would require any specialized response, nor does it place new land uses in an area that is subject to potential threats such as high fire hazard area, flood, or known hazardous materials or substance releases.

As for emergency evacuation, the roadway grid in and around Signal Hill provides multiple means of evacuation from natural, technological or human-caused disasters. As identified in the Signal Hill General Plan Safety Element, existing evacuation routes are adequate to serve the City’s population, and no major improvements are considered necessary to maintain emergency access. Several of the local arterial roadways and Interstate (I-405) are major evacuation routes. Two arterial roadways are in the immediate vicinity of the project site; Cherry Avenue to the west and Willow Street to the north are designated as major evacuation routes.15 Given these available emergency routes, future residents, workers, and visitors would have sufficient options for emergency evacuation at each Housing Site if necessary.

The Project would be required to meet minimum driveway width and design requirements as established by SHMC Title 15 and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. These standards ensure that driveways are properly sized and located to facilitate emergency vehicle access and the positioning of emergency response crews during emergencies. Thus, since the development of the Housing Sites would not introduce any new land uses not already considered in emergency response plans or place the proposed land uses in an area that has been identified as high risk in relation to natural or man-made hazards, and since it would adhere to design requirements established in part to promote safety and logical evacuation, the Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to the implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-22 through 4.6-23.)

7. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: No impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-23 through 4.6-24.) Explanation: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal fire) has mapped fire hazard severity zones throughout the state. Designations include Unboned (the lowest wildland fire risk), Moderate, High, and Very High. Property within the City boundaries is Unzoned, indicating a low potential for wildland fire; there are no Moderate, High, or Very High fire hazard zones in the City. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. As such, there would be no impact. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-23 through 4.6-24.) J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 48 through 49.) Explanation: The City is located within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), which prepares and maintains a basin plan that identifies narrative and numerical water quality objectives to protect all beneficial uses of the waters of that region. The basin plan is intended to achieve the identified water quality objectives through implementation of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and by employing three strategies for addressing water quality issues: control of point source pollutants, control of nonpoint source pollutants, and remediation of existing contamination.

Point sources of pollutants are well-defined locations at which pollutants flow into water bodies (discharges from wastewater treatment plants and industrial sources, for example). These sources are controlled through regulatory systems including permitting under California’s WDRs and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program; permits are issued by the appropriate RWQCB and may set discharge limitation or other discharge provisions.

According to the Basin Plan, nonpoint sources of pollutants are typically derived from runoff caused by rain or irrigation and have been classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) into one of the following categories: agriculture, urban runoff, construction, hydromodification, resource extraction, silviculture, and land disposal. This type of pollution is not ideally suited to be addressed by the same regulatory mechanisms used to control point sources. Instead, California’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan describes a three-tiered approach, including the voluntary use of best management practices (BMPs), the regulatory enforcement of the use of BMPs, and effluent limitations. Generally speaking, each RWQCB implements the least restrictive tier until more stringent enforcement is necessary.

The LARWQCB addresses on-site drainage through its construction, industrial, and municipal permit programs. These permits require measures to minimize or prevent erosion and reduce the volume of sediments and pollutants in a project’s runoff and discharges based upon the size of the project site.

Further, the Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 12.16, Storm Water/Urban Runoff, contains requirements for post-construction stormwater activities and facility operations of development and redevelopment projects to comply with the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). In part, adherence requires integrating lowimpact development (LID) design principles to lessen the water quality impacts of development through biofiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall harvest. Specifically, a LID plan will required for each individual development project on the Housing Sites to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code (Section 12.16.114, New development/redevelopment pollutant reduction).

Finally, to prevent water quality impacts due to construction-related stormwater pollutants, future project applicants are required to develop a SWPPP, as stated in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 12.16.112, Construction pollutant reduction). This plan would detail best management practices, including desilting basins or other temporary drainage or control measures, or both, as may be necessary to control construction-related pollutants. The City will not issue a grading permit for the project until the SWPPP has been submitted to and approved by the City (Section

12.16.112[D]).

Lastly, a LID plan is required per municipal code, proposed development at each Housing Site would be required to prepare an LID plan that would be subject to City review and approval as part of the plan check process for the development project. Impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 48 through 49.)

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 49 through 50.) Explanation: Anticipated development of the Housing Sites does not include any groundwater extraction wells because all water demand would be met through piped connections to the City of Signal Hill’s municipal water system. This municipal water system resources are supplied by groundwater from the Central Basin (which originates in the San Gabriel River) and treated surface water from the Metropolitan Water District (which originates in the Colorado River).

According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), The City’s water supply sources include groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. Historically, the City imports about 18 percent of its potable water supply and the remaining 82 percent is groundwater. Recycled water is only used for Reservoir Park. In terms of groundwater, the City draws groundwater from the Central Basin aquifer, which underlies approximately 227 square miles in southeastern Los Angeles County.

Due to low soil permeability and largely impermeable surfaces in the overlying areas, precipitation over the basin has minimal influence on the replenishment of the Central Basin. Natural replenishment of the basin occurs primarily from surface flow and underflow through Whittier Narrows from the San Gabriel Valley. Intentional replenishment by Water Replenishment District (WRD) is accomplished by capturing and spreading water at the Rio Hondo and the San Gabriel River Spreading Grounds in the Montebello Forebay. Sources of replenishment water are local storm runoff, local dry-weather urban runoff, imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and recycled water purchased from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD).

Population in the City is approximately 11,600 in 2016 and is anticipated to increase to 12,500 in 2045 according to SCAG forecasts.34 As the City of Signal Hill is in a highly urbanized setting, this growth will mostly be redevelopment in expansion of multifamily housing. The normal supply and demand totals from the Signal Hill UWMP show a demand of 1,897-acre feet (AF) in 2020 and increases to 2,157 AF in 2040, an increase of 260 AF.

The anticipated water supply in 2030 is 4,369 AF. It is expected that the Housing Sites would generate an additional population of 1,355 people to the City of Signal Hill. The additional population would represent approximately 142 percent of the forecasted population growth from SCAG. Based on the population increase, the anticipated housing developments would increase the local water usage by approximately 372 AF by 2029, resulting in a water demand of 2,469 AF in 2029, within the service capacity of 4,369 AF. Therefore, full development of the Housing Sites is not anticipated to substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

Also, the City pays a replenishment assessment to the Water Replenishment District of Southern California for each acre-foot of water that is pumped out of the Central Basin aquifer. Since the project site is located well outside of the well fields that produce a majority of the City’s water supply, and since no water extraction wells are proposed, the project would not have a significant effect on those groundwater resources and the project’s impacts on groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 49 through 50.)

3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: 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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 51.) Explanation: Anticipated development of the Housing Sites would transition these sites from partially developed to fully developed, with a combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped conditions, which would increase the rate and amount of site runoff. This increase in runoff would be captured in a stormwater conveyance system as part of the proposed development that would ultimately discharge into the City’s municipal storm sewer system.

This stormwater conveyance system would be detailed in the proposed project’s LID plan, a requirement of Section 12.16.114 of the City’s Municipal Code. The LID plan would be prepared for the development of each of the Housing Sites as the designs become finalized. The LID plan would assess for the anticipated wastewater discharge at each site and incorporate any mitigation measures or design features as appropriate to meet any defined goals outlined in the LID plan. The City would review and approve of the LID plan as part of the anticipated development project prior to issuance of construction permits. As such, there would be no surface runoff discharged off-site. Further, no drainage courses are present on the Housing Sites that would be altered as a result of the subsequent development of the Housing Sites. Therefore, existing drainage patterns would not be substantially altered in a manner that would result in result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 51.)

4. Flooding
Threshold: 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, 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 51.) Explanation: As previously mentioned, anticipated development of the Housing Sites would transition these sites from partially developed to fully developed, with a combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped conditions, which would increase the rate and amount of site runoff. This increase in site runoff would be captured in a stormwater conveyance system as part of the proposed development that would ultimately discharge into the City’s municipal storm sewer system. This stormwater conveyance system would be detailed in the proposed project’s LID plan, a requirement of Section

12.16.114 of the City’s Municipal Code, which is described in response a), above. Therefore, the drainage pattern of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 51.)

5. Runoff
Threshold: 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, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 51 through 52.) Explanation: As previously mentioned, anticipated development of the Housing Sites would transition these sites from partially developed to fully developed, with a combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped conditions, which would increase the rate and amount of site runoff. This increase in site runoff would be captured in a stormwater conveyance system as part of the proposed development that would ultimately discharge into the City’s municipal storm sewer system. This stormwater conveyance system and its capacity would be detailed in the proposed project’s LID plan, a requirement of Section 12.16.114 of the City’s Municipal Code, which is described in response a), above. Therefore, the drainage pattern of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and the effects of the development of the Housing Sites would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 51 through 52.)

6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 52.)
Explanation: The City’s General Plan Safety Element identifies the area nearest the Housing Sites that could be impacted by a tsunami as the Colorado Lagoon area in Long Beach, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Signal Hill boundary. Therefore, the City is not susceptible to tsunami-related effects. A seiche is an event caused by oscillation of waters in an enclosed water body, such as a lake. There are no bodies of water within or near the City that could produce a seiche event. Regarding mudflows, the Housing Sites are relatively flat and is not in an area of known landslide hazards.

Therefore, the development of Housing Sites would not be impacted by inundation from tsunami, seiche, or mudflows. (Initial Study, p. 52.)

7. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 52.)
Explanation: Future development of the Housing Sites would be required to comply with existing regulations including the County LID ordinance, which is structured to address and achieve water quality objectives set forth in the LARWQCB Basin Plan. There is no sustainable groundwater management plan in place for the City. For these reasons, future development of the Housing Sites would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional Basin Plan and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. (Initial Study, p. 52.) K. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 53.) Explanation: The physical division of an established community is typically associated with the construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway, regional flood control channel, or railroad tracks, or the removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and an outlying area.

The Walnut Bluff, Town Center Northwest, and Orange Bluff Housing Sites are in close proximity to each other and are mostly vacant with limited general industrial or commercial uses. The existing Heritage Square Housing Site is also mostly vacant with some commercial uses.

Surrounding uses include commercial and general industrial buildings.

Development of the Housing Sites would not intrude into the adjacent established neighborhoods. No other modifications to existing off-site infrastructure facilities or the removal of any such facilities would be required, and there would be no infrastructure-related improvements or removals that could result in a physical disruption to an established land use or the local pattern of development. Additionally, existing transportation linkages connecting different neighborhoods and communities would not be affected by development of the Housing Sites. For these reasons, the development of the Housing Sites would physically divide the established community. (Initial Study, p. 53.)

2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-22 through 4.7-31.) Explanation: The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements a City is required to prepare as part of its General Plan. Enacted by law in 1969, the Housing Element identifies a City’s housing conditions and needs using the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation provided by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), in the Project’s case would be the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

The Housing Element then establishes the goals, objectives, policies and programs that serves as the foundation for the City’s housing strategy to achieve specific housing goals and improve local housing conditions. The City is updating the Housing Element to address housing needs for the October 2021 to October 2029 Planning Period. The SCAG RHNA allocation for the City identified a housing need of 517 housing units with approximately 45 percent of the 517 units needed for very low- and lowincome households. The RHNA allocation for Signal Hill includes 161 very low-income units, 78 low-income units, 90 moderate-income units, and 188 above moderate-income units. The proposed Project would accommodate for 339 above moderate units; 90 very low and low-income units; and 295 very low, low, and moderate-income units. A total of 724 units are proposed with the implementation of the Project.

This analysis evaluates the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (Project) and the four Housing Sites that have been identified for future housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Future housing developments would be subject to the entitlement process requirements and City approval. Development of identified Housing Sites would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws and local policies and regulations consistent with the procedures applicable to new developments. This section focuses on the Housing Sites’ consistency with existing land use plans and policies. The following plans have been reviewed for consistency with the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update adoption and the anticipated development of the four Housing Sites.

SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS provides goals and policies consistent with the SCAG planning vision for regional growth and a guide to collaboration with local governments in order to increase the mobility and sustainability of the area. The update of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS reflects the changes in economic, policy, and demographic conditions in the region. The overarching goals of this plan address four core categories: economy, mobility, environment, and health/complete communities. The proposed Project would further the objectives of the plan by increasing the amount of available affordable housing within the City, which has been designated a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA).

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS identifies strategies and investments to support expanded housing choices for all income levels in areas with a range of transportation choices. Conclusions within the document stated that a comprehensive approach is needed in order to identify housing opportunities within Priority Growth Areas (PGAs) such as job centers, Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) found within half a mile of a major transit station, and High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) which include generally walkable transit oriented areas within one half-mile or a 15 minute walk of a well serviced transit stop.17 Additionally, under Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) (2019) legislation, SCAG is eligible for approximately $47 million from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). These funds will be used to develop a Regional Housing Strategy Framework and provide planning resources, grants and services to jurisdictions to implement their 6th cycle RHNA allocation, which is supportive of Connect SoCal goals and policies.

According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the Project would be consistent with the Regional Housing Strategy Framework which places an emphasis on affordable infill housing development within transit-oriented neighborhoods. The Housing Sites are all located within High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) according to SCAG which is considered a generally walkable transit village or corridor and is within one half-mile of a wellserviced transit stop or a transit corridor within 15-minute or less service frequency during peak hours. The Housing Sites are served by existing Long Beach Transit (LBT) bus lines along Orange Avenue and East Willow Street. Moreover, the LA Metro Willow Street station is within the vicinity of the Housing Sites. With the implementation of the proposed Project, a total of 385 very low, low, and moderate units would be create within the HQTA as well as an additional 339 above moderate units. The SCAG RHNA allocation for the City identified 329 very low, low, and moderate units with 188 above moderate income units. The proposed Project would sufficiently allocate the SCAG RHNA identified number of units for each affordability level as well as additional units and would be consistent with the goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 4.7-1: SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Analysis of the Recirculated Draft EIR provides a consistency analysis of the proposed Project as compared to applicable goals and policies contained in various chapters of the plan. The analysis contained in the table demonstrates that the proposed Project would generally be consistent with the advisory and voluntary RTP/SCS Goals.

City of Signal Hill General Plan – Land Use Element
The General Plan policies focus largely on the continuation of developing the character of each community and neighborhood within the City and protecting the quality of the physical environment. A main objective of the Housing Element is to meet the City’s housing needs, including accommodating a variety of housing types and densities. Implementation of the Housing Element and development of new housing in the City would, for the most part, be in or adjacent to urbanized areas and are vacant for the most part. Table 4.72: Project Consistency with General Plan Land Use Element of the Recirculated Draft EIR outlines the consistency of the proposed Project with the Land Use Element goals and policies.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the General Plan would be consistent with the intent of these existing goals and policies.

While no specific development projects are proposed at this time, the Project would aim to designate the four Housing Sites as potential future development areas to provide housing to very low, low, moderate, and above moderate affordability levels. Current designation of the Housing Sites would need to be amended in order to support future housing development and become consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning code. The Walnut Bluff Site would require a General Plan amendment to Very High Density Residential (35-45 dwelling units per acre) and a zone change to a Special Purpose Housing (SP-7) Specific Plan.

The Heritage Square Site re-designation calls for the area to be designated and established as a Central Business District (CBD) and would also require a zoning ordinance amendment to the Heritage Square (SP-23) Specific Plan. Town Center Northwest Site would require a General Plan amendment to CBD and a zoning ordinance amendment to a Town Center Northwest Specific Plan (SP-24 SP-21) to allow a mixed-use commercial and residential project. Finally, the Orange Bluff Site would require a General Plan Amendment to Very High Density Residential designation and a zoning ordinance amendment to rezone the site to the Special Purpose Housing Specific Plan (SP-7) designation. For the Walnut Bluff and Orange Bluff Sites, a change in land use designation to Very High Density Residential would be consistent with the City’s standard density used for affordable housing projects. The Heritage Square Site and the Town Center Northwest Site would be re-designated to CBD. The Commercial Business District was identified in the City’s Land Use Element stemming from a need for new high-intensity commercial environment, including diverse and intensely developed pedestrian friendly mixed-use facilities. This designation would include retail, restaurants, community facilities, and residential dwellings within mixed-use structures. The Housing Sites would be consistent with the goals for this designation. Additionally, the General Plan designation map would be amended to support the adopted designation changes for each of the Housing Sites.

Anticipated development of the Housing Sites would be consistent with the General Plan, including policies and programs adopted to address environmental impacts, after the proposed amendments to the General Plan, designation map, and the zoning code. The Project would not remove or modify any policies or measures from the General Plan that are intended for environmental protection and would not conflict with any General Plan policies or measures that are intended for environmental protection. The four Housing Sites identified within the City would require General Plan amendments in order for future development to occur. The General Plan Designation Amendments would meet the objectives outlined within the Land Use Element to establish more residential uses and also meet the philosophy, character, and quality of the existing land uses.

Noise Element
The Noise Element provides goals and policies intended to limit the community’s exposure to excessive noise levels. The predominate noise source in the vicinity of the Project area is vehicular traffic. Existing noise sensitive uses around the Walnut Bluff, Town Center Northwest, and Orange Bluff sits include Willow Springs Park, Long Beach Municipal Cemetery, and churches. Noise sensitive uses near Heritage Square include residential homes in close proximity. Future development of the Housing Sites would require the use of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, loaders, etc.), which would generate noise on a temporary, shortterm basis. Oil drilling facilities exist on each of the four Housing Sites and would need to be removed prior to the development of the sites. In the event construction activities were to occur concurrently at multiple Housing Sites in close proximity, impacts to nearby sensitive receptors can increase to a level where the impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors would be potentially significant.

Construction noise associated with future residential land uses and associated infrastructure development as a result of the Project would be temporary in nature and would vary depending on the characteristics of construction activities being performed. The proposed Project includes existing Housing Sites and future development of those Sites based on the approval of the Project. Noise generated during construction of buildings and long-term Project related noise would be regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance and other related policies. As for Project area, the Orange Bluff, Walnut Bluff, and Town Center Northwest Sites are all located within the vicinity of some industrial uses. However, the Noise Element does not identify commercial and industrial uses as a citywide noise problem, except for some isolated conflicts. Additionally, the Noise Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and other sections within the Municipal Code provide standards that limit noise production from these uses, such as hours of operation.

The future development of the Sites would not create substantial noise, which might conflict with existing policies in the City’s Noise Element.

Each Site would be assessed prior to development to ensure that consistency with surrounding uses can be achieved and protect sensitive receptors within the residential dwellings. As such, the uses within the vicinity of the Project area would be consistent with the proposed future development of residential uses. Policies within the Noise Element proposed to protect sensitive receptors and the health and safety of the public through consistent land uses would be applied to the Project, as shown in Table 4.7-3: Project Consistency with Noise Element of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

City of Signal Hill Municipal Code and Zoning Code
The Signal Hill Municipal Code carries out the policies of the City’s General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses and development of land and structures consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Code is adopted to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, and restrict the location of buildings and a variety of uses within the City to promote public health, safety and general welfare. The Housing Sites would be reviewed prior to any construction for consistency with the City’s development standards set forth in the Municipal Code and Design Guidelines as part of the design review process. The Specific Plan Districts are set forth in the Municipal Code zoning section and contain guidelines for development within the individual area. With each Project subject to the individual Specific Plan designation upon rezoning, the Sites would be consistent with the Municipal Code and Zoning Code policies and guidelines. The existing and proposed Specific Plans applicable to the Project are described below.

Special Purpose Housing Specific Plan
The Special Purpose Housing Specific Plan (SP-7) includes six areas within the City each with their own general guidelines for development. The use classification of the SP-7 includes various residential designations including supplemental amenities to support those uses such as parking designations, laundry facilities, and community facilities. With the implementation of the proposed Project, two new areas would be proposed to support the future housing development within the Walnut Bluff and Orange Bluff sites.

The Project would use this Specific Plan designation in order to provide housing for extremely low-, very low- and low-income households. The Walnut Bluff and Orange Bluff sites would require a zoning change to SP7 in order to accommodate specific housing for these income levels. SP-7 zoning includes guidelines for multifamily dwelling units and accessory uses permitted such as community meeting rooms, laundry facilities on-site for use of the households, open space, carports and uncovered parking lots.

Income levels above very low and low income would restricted from occupancy within this plan. Additionally, the maximum dwelling unit density would be limited to 35-45 or Very High Density Residential land use designation which would align with the SP-7 plan. Other requirements of the SP-7 zoning include building height; required setbacks; landscape materials and turf; fences, walls, and hedges; off-street parking; trash and recycling storage; signs; mechanical equipment; and utilities. These would be defined specifically within each individual site area in order to accommodate and maintain consistency within the existing land uses surrounding the future development site. No additional discretionary action is required for future development of SP-7 Areas VII and VIII, Orange Bluff and Walnut Bluff, as long as the refined site plans are substantially the same as the conceptual plans in SP-7, and they comply with all other development and design standards.

Town Center Northwest Specific Plan District
The Project proposes a zoning amendment for the Town Center Northwest site from Commercial Corridor Specific Plan (SP-6) to a Town Center Northwest Specific Plan (SP-24). This designation would allow for mixeduse commercial and residential projects for future development. Existing SP-6 zoning outlines provisions for property development of commercial centers but does not have allowances or standards for a mixed-use project that includes both commercial and residential uses. The rezoning of the Town Center Northwest Specific Plan will include provisions for mixeduse development. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the intended re-zoning to SP-24 and environmental impacts would be less than significant. Adoption of the Specific Plan zoning designation requires that future development of the Town Center Northwest project be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future date under the City’s Site Plan and Design Review process.

Heritage Square Specific Plan
The Project proposes a zoning amendment for the Heritage Square site to a Heritage Square Specific Plan (SP-23). This designation would allow for mixed-use commercial and residential projects for future development in accordance with the development density described in this EIR. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the intended re-zoning and environmental impacts would be less than significant.

The Land Use Element in the City’s General Plan proposed changes in the 2001 update for the development of the Heritage Square Central Business District. This proposed district would be combined with the Central Business District designation allowing for the development of high intensity mixed use space which includes retail shops, entertainment, dining, fitness center as well as high density residential development. This designation would include a mixed use intensive commercial and residential specific plan added to the Commercial Town Center area located between 25th and Creston Streets and Rose and Cherry Avenues. The Heritage Square Specific Plan (SP 23) would be developed using the proposed designation in the Land Use Element and would accommodate for the Heritage Square Housing Site located near the City center in the Civic Center neighborhood, northwest of the intersection of Cherry Avenue and E. Burnett Street. Future development of the Heritage Square Site and the Heritage Square Specific Plan (SP 23) would be required to follow the existing Municipal Code guidelines established under the SP 23 zoning and the City’s General Plan.

Adoption of the Specific Plan zoning designation requires that future development of the Heritage Square project be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future date under the City’s Site Plan and Design Review process.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan
California State Law requires the establishment of an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with the purpose of planning for areas within the vicinity of public use airports. The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) is required by State law through the ALUC in order to protect the public, health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding areas. The Long Beach Municipal Airport (LGB) is included in the Los Angeles ALUP. The City of Signal Hill is located northeast adjacent to the Long Beach Airport.

However, the proposed Housing Sites are not within the Long Beach Airport Influence Area and would not be subject to the Los Angeles ALUP. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-22 through 4.7-31.)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 55 through 56.) Explanation: Mineral resources are commonly defined as a concentration or occurrence of natural, solid, inorganic, or fossilized organic material in or on the earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. Mineral resources can be categorized into three classes: fuel, metallic, and nonmetallic. Fuel resources include coal, oil (petroleum), and natural gas. Metals include such resources as gold, silver, iron, and copper. Lastly, nonmetal resources include industrial minerals and construction aggregate. Industrial minerals include boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone. Construction aggregate includes sand and gravel, and crushed stone.

The City lies within the Long Beach Oil Field, where oil production dates back to 1919 when oil was first discovered in the area. The Long Beach Oil Field is termed a “mega giant” field, which is a field that produces over 1 million barrels a day. Currently, the Long Beach Oil Field is considered moderately productive as oil wells are gradually being converted to urban development. Even with the reduction, the Willington Field oil in Long Beach alone operates over 1,500 active oil wells38 and Signal Hill Petroleum operates over 400 wells in the cities of Long Beach and Signal Hill.

Additional active oil wells exist in the area operated by other private operating entities and many oil wells are either idle or not currently in operation which are not accounted for in these estimates. Overall, there are approximately 3,000 active wells in Los Angeles County.

While the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any residential development, subsequent development of the Housing is anticipated. In total, 26 active drilling wells are present on the four identified Housing Sites. Twenty-six active oil wells accounts for less than one percent of the number of active oil wells in Los Angeles County and will not result in substantial loss of availability of a known mineral resource in the local area. Removal of the active wells as necessary for Housing Site implementation would not result in the substantial loss of a mineral resource. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 55 through 56.)

2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 56.) Explanation: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary regulator for surface mining in the state. The act requires the State Geologist (California Geological Survey) to identify all mineral deposits in the State and to classify them based on their significance. SMARA defines a mineral deposit as a naturally occurring concentration of minerals in amounts or arrangement that under certain conditions may constitute a mineral resource. The concentration may be of value for its chemical or physical characteristics. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the State and local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), Scientific Resource Zone (SZ), or Identified Resource Area (IRA), described below:
• MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. • MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates than significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and development should be controlled.
• MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where mineral resource significance is undetermined.
• MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
• SZ Areas: Containing unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific significance shall be classified in this zone.
• IRA Areas: County or State Division of Mines and Geology Identified Areas where adequate production and information indicate that significant minerals are present.

As shown on the Mineral Classification Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (1982), the Housing Sites are classified MRZ-4, areas with insufficient data to assign to any other category. The City’s General Plan does not identify the Housing Sites as having significant mineral deposits of any kind, or located in an area delineated as a mineral resource recovery site, pursuant to SMARA. Additionally, the removal of oil wells on identified Housing Sites would not result in a significant loss of locally available mineral resources. Therefore, since there are no known significant mineral resources and the project site is not a designated mineral resource recovery site as identified by SMARA or in the City’s General Plan, the project would have no impact upon the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (Initial Study, p. 56.)
M. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-26.) Explanation: Construction
Noise from construction activities will be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance to noisesensitive receivers. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Housing Sites. Each phase would involve the use of different types of construction equipment and, therefore, have its own distinct noise characteristics.

Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the Housing Sites to work on-site, export demolition debris, and deliver supplies. Trucks traveling to and from the Housing Sites would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City.

Development of the Orange Bluff Site would require a maximum of 212 worker trips per day and 32 vendor trips per day throughout construction.

Vehicle trips which include medium-duty trucks would generate a maximum noise level of approximately 56.3 dBA, at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 4.83 of the Draft EIR, existing noise levels at the Orange Bluff Site ranged from 58.0 dBA to 71.2 dBA. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 80 dBA and would not exceed existing noise levels. Accordingly, off-site construction noise impacts for the Orange Bluff Site would be less than significant.

Development of the Walnut Bluff Site would require a maximum of 65 worker trips per day and 10 vendor trips per day throughout construction.

Vehicle trips which include medium-duty trucks would generate a maximum noise level of approximately 51.2 dBA, at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 4.83 of the Draft EIR, existing noise levels at the Walnut Bluff Site ranged from 61.1 dBA to 70.5 dBA. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 80 dBA and would not exceed existing noise levels. Accordingly, off-site construction noise impacts for the Walnut Bluff Site would be less than significant.

Development of the Town Center Northwest Site would require a maximum of 201 worker trips per day and 33 vendor trips per day throughout construction. Vehicle trips which include medium-duty trucks would generate a maximum noise level of approximately 45.7 dBA, at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 4.8-3 of the Draft EIR, existing noise levels at the Town Center Northwest Site ranged from 65.4 dBA to 72.7 dBA. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 80 dBA and would not exceed existing noise levels. Accordingly, off-site construction noise impacts for the Town Center Northwest Site would be less than significant.

Development of the Heritage Square Site would require a maximum of 66 worker trips per day, 15 vendor trips per day, and 63 total haul trips throughout construction. Vehicle trips which include medium- and heavyduty trucks would generate a maximum noise level of approximately 41.0 dBA, at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 4.8-3 of the Draft EIR, existing noise levels at the Heritage Square Site ranged from 52.0 dBA to 76.3 dBA. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 80 dBA and would not exceed existing noise levels. Accordingly, off-site construction noise impacts for the Heritage Square Site would be less than significant.

Operation
Roadway Noise
Table 4.8-13: Off-Site Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts—Existing Baseline Plus Project of the Draft EIR presents the estimated off-site traffic noise levels from the Project. As shown in Table 4.8-13 of the Draft EIR, AM roadway noise level increases ranged from a low of 0 dBA to a high of 0.7 dBA along Walnut Avenue south of Spring Street (Intersection 6).

Moreover, PM roadway noise level increases ranged from a low of 0 dBA to a high of 0.6 dBA along Walnut Avenue south of Spring Street (Intersection 6). As such, the Project would not result in a 3 dBA increase at any of the study intersections. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts due to the Project would be less than significant.

Fixed-Mechanical Equipment Noise
The Project would introduce various stationary noise sources, including HVAC systems. All mechanical equipment would be required to be designed with appropriate noise-control devices, such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls, to comply with noiselimitation requirements provided in Chapter 9.16 of the SHMC. The City’s existing General Plan policies would protect residents from excessive stationary noise sources and ensure new land uses meet the SHMC’s noise standards through evaluation and design considerations. Thus, stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by General Plan goals and policies, and the SHMC, which limit allowable noise levels at adjacent properties. Therefore, through compliance with the requirements in Chapter

9.16 of the SHMC and building permit approval subsequent to the City’s development review process, operation of mechanical equipment for the Project would be designed to not exceed the City’s threshold of significance and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through

4.8-26.)

2. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-26.) Explanation: Table 4.8-14: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts–Building Damage of the Draft EIR presents the construction vibration impacts associated with on-site construction in terms of building damage. As shown in Table 4.8-14 of the Draft EIR, the forecasted vibration levels due to onsite construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold of 0.2 PPV ips for the nearest sensitive receptors surrounding the Housing Sites during construction. Due to the distance of the identified sensitive receptors, on-site construction vibration would not result in a significant vibration impact with regard to building damage.

Impacts related to building damage from on-site construction vibration would not be considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-26.)

3. Airport
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: Less than significant (Initial Study, p. 58.)
Explanation: Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise level because we are not adding people living or working within 2 miles of the airport. The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element does not provide additional facilities to house residents or workers within the 2-mile radius of the airport and does not approve of any development projects. The closest airport is the Long Beach Municipal Airport, located 2.8 miles east of the Project Site.42 Additionally, the Housing Sites are not within 2 miles of the airport.

Therefore, future development of the Housing Sites would not expose people to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 58.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-7 through 4.9-20.) Explanation: The 2021-2029 Housing Element update does not approve or provide design plans for any physical development. Future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. Therefore, the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would not induce population growth in the City directly or indirectly.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element update would identify a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s housing capacity. However, any future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would occur in urbanized locations near existing infrastructure (roads, utilities) and within an existing service area by fire and other emergency responders. Given these conditions and the City’s existing development and housing occupancy patterns, it is not anticipated future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would induce population growth indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure.

However, to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 517 dwelling units (DUs), the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would identify a series of implementing actions to increase housing capacity that would induce some planned population growth in the City. SCAG forecasts the City is expected to see an increase of households by 12% or 500 households. Regardless, even when considering the greater increase in the number of households to the area, as required by State law to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 517 DUs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the corresponding population growth would be relatively small and would not be considered “unplanned” population growth. As shown in Table 4.9-2: Population And Household Increase From Housing Element Update of the Draft EIR, the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would result in an estimated 4,817 households in 2045, 17 DUs over the 4,800 households over the SCAG’s household forecast for 2045. The 17 additional DUs over the SCAG estimate would account for approximately 3 percent of additional housing units at full project build out which is within the slight variation in forecasting and would not be considered “unplanned”.

The forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be an estimated 1,355 persons at the completion of 517 DUs. Including the forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, the City’s population would total approximately 12,955 persons. As shown in Table 4.9-2 of the Draft EIR, the City’s forecast population including future housing development facilitated by the 20212029 Housing Element update of approximately 12,955 persons would be a less than 5% increase over the SCAG’s forecast population of 12,500 persons by 2045. Additionally, the housing unit development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be put in place, in part, to accommodate for an existing shortage of housing for the existing population in the region and within the City limits. As such, the development of housing units facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update is not anticipated to induce new population growth at the average household size of 2.62 per household. As such, the increase in population at full build out of housing units facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would be comparable to the 2045 SCAG population forecast. As previously noted, the HEU update would result in a significant impact if it would “induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area.” The slight variation in population forecasts is not considered substantial given it would occur over an extended period (i.e., 2021 through 2029) and the housing units would be built, in part, to accommodate the existing housing shortage. Additionally, the future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update is intended to be dispersed throughout the community to create managed levels of growth in specific areas. The City is mostly developed and existing infrastructure provides essential services citywide. Therefore, the 2021- 2029 Housing Element update would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City by identifying future actions to increase capacity for the future development of new dwelling units, as necessary to meet State housing law requirements.

Candidate Housing Sites
While the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any specific housing developments or result in construction of housing units, candidate housing sites (Housing Sites) has been selected as part of the Housing Element in accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2. The 20212029 Housing Element identifies four Housing Sites and conducted a feasibility study to determine the maximum number of housing that could be constructed at each site. While the maximum amount of housing for each site are provided as part of the analysis, the City is only required to construct 517 units to satisfy the RHNA allocation assigned to the City. Table 4.9-3: Maximum Units Per Candidate Housing Site of the Draft EIR shows the maximum number of housing units that would be constructed at each housing site if a development application is submitted for each site and all sites are cleared for development at its maximum build out with full occupancy.

Based on the analysis provided, the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocation required unit developments would be within the reasonable range of SCAG’s population forecast.

Therefore, anticipated population increase based on compliance with the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation would not be considered “unplanned” or substantial. Development at the identified Housing Sites would be located in urbanized areas with existing public services and no expansion of existing public services facilities or utility provisions are anticipated. Development of the Housing Sites would also be subject to discretionary permits and required development fees from the City for the maintenance of any existing facilities. Additionally, housing development would be subject to compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth-related impacts such as the California Green Building Standards Code to conserve available resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-7 through 4.9-20.)

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 59.)
Explanation: Complete development of the Housing Sites would include the development of up to 724 units on 4 different sites over the span of 8 years. The SCAG RHNA allocation for the City identified a housing need of 517 housing units. The RHNA allocation for Signal Hill includes 161 very low-income units, 78 low-income units, 90 moderate-income units, and 188 above moderate-income units. The Project area encompasses the entirety of the City limits, approximately 2.2 square miles. The existing conditions of the Housing Sites are largely vacant and does not include any existing housing.

Therefore, the development of the Housing Sites would result in a net increase in housing and would not displace any existing housing. No impacts to housing displacement and replacement of housing is anticipated. (Initial Study, p. 59.)
O. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.) Explanation: The nearest fire station to the Housing Sites is County Fire Department Station No. 60, located approximately 0.8 miles east of Orange Bluff, Walnut Bluff, Town Center Northwest and Heritage Square is approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the fire station. The adoption of the Project would not approve of any housing development. All future housing development at the identified Housing Sites would be subject to discretionary actions by the City. For analysis purposes, full development of the Housing Sites would add approximately 1,355 residents to the area.

The Housing Sites are located within the City of Signal Hill which contracts fire protection services with the LACoFD. Project applicants are required to submit project plans to the LACoFD for review and approval with respect to applicable fire protection standards set forth in Title 32 Section 105.7 of the Los Angeles County Municipal Code. LACoFD approval is required prior to the issuance of building permits. Through this routine process, the LACoFD confirms that the project is designed in conformance with the applicable safety codes and would have a sufficient fire flow and emergency access for fire engines and crews. No additional crew would be required to cover the development of Housing Sites.

A request for information was sent to the Los Angeles County Fire Department on April 16, 2021 and a response from the department was received on May 26, 2021. The response concluded that no significant impacts would occur as a result of development of the Housing Sites.

However, future development would be required to comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water main, fire flows, and fire hydrants. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9.)

2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Sheriff Law Enforcement Services?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9.) Explanation: Police protection services for the City are provided by the Signal Hill Police Department (SHPD). The station is located at 2745 Walnut Avenue, approximately 0.09 miles east of Orange Bluff, 0.07 miles north of Walnut Bluff, 0.03 miles northwest of Town Center Northwest, and 0.7 miles northwest of Heritage Square. The City also has mutual aid agreements with the Long Beach Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and other regional law enforcement agencies. These agreements allow for assistance from other agencies in the event of a major crime or natural disaster that could not effectively be handled with the resources available to the SHPD.

A request for information from the City of Signal Hill Police Department was sent on April 16, 2021. A response has not been received. As stated above, full development of the Housing Sites would add approximately 1,355 residents to the area. Given the City’s access to additional police services support through mutual aid agreement with LBPD, the projected additional population created by the development of the Housing Sites would not induce a need for additional police protection services.

Additionally, future goals within the General Plan Safety Element for the City include on-going provisions for assessing adequate supply of protection services by determining deficiencies during emergency testing exercises and adopting objectives based on time standards for all fire, rescue, and emergency response services. With these goals in mind for the City, the potential future growth with the development of the Housing Sites would continue to receive adequate service from the local and associated police departments. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9.)

3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-11.) Explanation: The City is a part of the LBUSD which provides Alvarado Elementary School, Signal Hill Elementary School, and Jessie Elwin Nelson Academy (middle school) to the City. A request for information was sent to the Long Beach Unified School District on April 16, 2021 and a response has not yet been received. Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve or result in any physical changes or development projects. As such, adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not require additional school capacity to accommodate. However, future development of the Housing Sites would add additional residents to the area and generate new students.

According to the most recent 2016 FMP Update, the projected number of total enrolled students for the year 2025 would be 67,613 students. The number of students projected to be enrolled during 2020 was 69,634.

Alvarado Elementary school has a building capacity of 532 students, Signal Hill Elementary has a capacity of 914, and Jessie Nelson Academy has a capacity of 850. In the 2019-2020 school year, Alvarado Elementary had 388 students enrolled in K-5 consisting of approximately 73 percent total capacity, Signal Hill Elementary had 739 total students enrolled in K-5 for approximately 81 percent total capacity, and Nelson Academy had a total 814 students enrolled within grades 6-8 for approximately 96 percent capacity. Based on the projected District-wide decrease in the number of students enrolled, there will be excess capacity in some campuses and the FMP will focus on rehabilitating existing campuses. The additional housing units at full project buildout would constitute a 3 percent increase in projected units. Compliance with 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 517 additional units to be developed would result in a total of 4,817 households, approximately 17 households over the 4,800 households over the SCAG’s household forecast for 2045, which is within the variation of forecast and would not be an excessive increase of households. The forecast population growth resulting from future housing development facilitated by the 2021- 2029 Housing Element update would be an estimated 1,355 persons at the completion of 517 DUs. Assuming 1.8 students are generated by each household (based on the 2010 total fertility rate in Los Angeles County) an additional 931 students would be generated during operation of the 517 DUs in compliance with 6th Cycle RHNA. Not all households are anticipated to have children of school attending age and the total fertility rate is in decline so the estimated number of students are conservative and likely to decrease overtime. Additionally, additional students would be spread out in age group and be absorbed into different local schools. As such, the increase in enrollment facilitated by the development of Housing Sites in compliance with 6th Cycle RHNA allocation would be accommodated over the LBUSD campuses serving the City of Signal Hill.

California Code of Regulations Section 65995 and California Education Code Section 17620 allow school districts to levy fees on residential and/or commercial/industrial construction projects within a school district’s boundaries. The State Allocation Board (SAB) sets the per-square-foot Level I school impact fees (developer fees) which are updated every two years. Pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Sections 65995(b), LBUSD collects Statutory School Fees (Level 1 Developer Fees) for residential development. With the adoption of SB 50 and Proposition 1A in 1998 and meeting the requirements, the District exercised the option of adopting Alternative School Fees (Level 2 and 3 Developer Fee). Current impact fees for LBUSD consist of $0.70 per square foot for commercial/industrial development and $21,910/unit for singlefamily residential and $15,112 per unit for multi-family residential. Future development of either residential or commercial units would be required to pay development fees and be in receipt of a Certificate of Compliance from the LBUSD prior to the issuance of building permits.

According to the FMP, enrollment within the LBUSD has been decreasing consistently over the years leaving some campuses with excess capacity.32 As such and given that there are no identified projected capacity deficiencies within the LBUSD and the applicant is subject to the payment of the applicable developer fee to account for students potentially generated by the development of the Housing Sites, impacts to school services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-11.)

4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11 through 4.10-12.) Explanation: The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve of any housing development. However, development of the Housing Sites would add 517 units and approximately 1,355 new residents to the area which would potentially result in increased usage of existing parks. In the most recent Parks and Recreation Master Plan released 2021, the park space per 1,000 residents goal is 4 acres of open space per 1,000 population. When considering only parks within the City of Signal Hill, the 2020 level of service was 1.52 park acres per 1,000 residents, for a total deficiency of 40.9 acres. When including 25 percent of City of Long Beach parks within one- half mile of the city boundary, current population level of service increases to 3.69 acres per 1,000 residents, and the park acreage deficiency decreases to 15.4 acres. The City also requires an impact fee from residential development to go towards parks and recreation in the City as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. A Park Development Fee analysis was conducted in compliance with the Quimby Act and it was determined, with the population projections conducted, that a $7,700/unit park and recreational fee would be required to acquire and develop the required park land to meet the City’s acres of park land to 1,000 population ratio. An increase in local housing needs has since then been assessed in the updated 2021 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the parks and recreation fee has since then been adjusted to meet inflation and to continue to adequately address park land needs in the City. Pursuant to Chapter 21.40.030 of the Signal Hill Municipal Code, multifamily residential developments are required to pay park fees at $15,112/unit prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in 2021. This fee is intended to be used for the acquisition, improvement, and expansion of public parks and/or recreational facilities.

A request for information was sent to the Signal Hill Department of Community Services on April 16, 2021. A response was received on April 22nd, 2021 with reference to the publicly available 2021 Parks Master Plan.

Additionally, the Initial Study (IS) (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR) for the Project identified that recreation resources within the City would not be significantly impacted as a result of the Housing Site developments. As such, no additional analysis is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11 through

4.10-12.) Impacts would be less than significant.

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.) Explanation: The City is currently served by a single library branch (Signal Hill Public Library) and provides community centers within the City that offer programs and events for all residents. A request for information was sent to the Signal Hill Department of Community Services on April 16, 2021.38 A response was received on April 21st, 2021. The response provided information on the newly renovated Signal Hill Public Library which is stated to include two-stories with a total of 16,146 square feet of interior and 4,260 square feet terrace.

Future Housing Site development would generate population growth as previously mentioned. Development of the Housing Sites would result in an estimated 517 additional households with approximately 17 dwelling units (DUs) over the 4,800 households over the SCAG’s household forecast for 2045. The 17 additional DUs over the SCAG estimate would account for approximately 3 percent of additional housing units at full Housing Site build out. The forecast population at compliance with 6th RHNA Cycle would be an estimated 1,355 persons at the completion of 517 DU’s. Based on the data provided above the number of additional units would be within the variations of forecast data and any increase above the SCAG estimated forecast increase would be negligible. As a result the Housing Site developments would produce a negligible increased burden on facility use as only a small percentage of the residents would visit a particular facility on a given day. As such, compliance with the 6th Cycle RHNA and the development of Housing Sites would not result in a need to construct new types of other public facilities. Impacts to these facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13.)
P. RECREATION

1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study p. 62.)
Explanation: Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any housing development. However, development of the Housing Sites would add approximately 1,355 new residents to the area which would increase the use of existing neighborhood parks. According to the City’s 1989 Parks or Recreation Master Plan, the City provides roughly 2.71 acres of park land per 1,000 population, which is under the City’s goal of 4 acres/1,000 population. In compliance with the Quimby Act, a Park Development Fee analysis was conducted and it was determined, with the population projections conducted, that a $7,700/unit park and recreational fee would be required to acquire and develop the required park land to meet the City’s acres of park land to 1,000 population ratio. An increase in local housing needs has since then been assessed in the updated 2021 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the parks and recreation fee has since then been adjusted to meet inflation and to continue to adequately address park land needs in the City. Pursuant to Chapter 21.40.030 of the Signal Hill Municipal Code, multifamily residential developments are required to pay park fees at $15,112/unit prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in 2021. This fee is intended to be used for the acquisition, improvement, and expansion of public parks and/or recreational facilities. With the payment of park fees as required, impacts to park facilities from the development of the Housing Sites would be less than significant. (Initial Study p. 62.)

2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 62 through 63.) Explanation: Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve of any housing development. However, development of the Housing Sites would add approximately 1,355 new residents to the area. The City has assessed for foreseeable increase in population in the City and increased the parks and recreation fee accordingly to account for additional park land development. The City has plans to increase recreational facilities within the City limits including, but are not limited to, renovate/repurpose Spud Field, program a new conceptual plan for Hillbrook Park, Update amenities in Signal Hill Park, and other additional facility upgrades. Implementation of the Housing Sites would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities outside of the existing and planned recreational facility upgrades. Adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and development of the Housing Sites would have a less than significant impact on construction or expansion of recreational facilities. (Initial Study, pp. 62 through 63.)
Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC

1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11.11.) Explanation: The 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS has developed goals related to housing, transportation technologies, equity and resilience in order to adequately reflect the increasing importance of these topics in the region, and where possible the goals have been developed to link to potential performance measures and targets. The plan focuses on a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making key connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between people to create more efficient, safe, and environmentally sound future.

The City of Signal Hill General Plan Circulation Element includes policies addressing new development. The goal stated in the Circulation Element to “Ensure that new development results in the preservation and enhancement of the City” includes the following policies:

1.a: Ensure that necessary circulation system enhancements and expansions occur concurrently with new development and are consistent with the Los Angeles County CMP.

1.b: Require that new development include circulation and utility system improvements, including dedication of land for widening of roadways and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, where appropriate, and construction of new public works facilities reasonably related to the impacts of the development and intended use on the existing systems.

1.c: Develop and improve the circulation and utility systems by identifying and establishing a range of funding sources.

1.d: Limit growth and development when the impacts of growth cannot be mitigated or will overtax the existing systems.

1.e: Strengthen the framework for effective regional and local circulation system planning efforts.

1.f: Ensure that new development provides adequate parking for anticipated uses; however, reductions in parking requirements should be considered where alternative modes of transportation or shared parking opportunities exist.

1.g: Examine shared parking strategies for developments in mixed-use areas.

1.h: Implement a parking management program for existing and new developments considering parking reductions or shared use parking strategies.

As stated above, a CMP impact analysis is not required for this project so it would not conflict with the City’s policies. Additionally, any future development facilitated by the Project would need to comply with the City’s policies and guidelines pertaining to circulation to ensure the safe and efficient use of public roadways.

The City’s Municipal Code also includes requires new development projects to provide funds for the acquisition, improvement, and expansion of street, parkway, thoroughfare, intersection, and other traffic and circulation improvements.11 This ordinance is intended to authorize reasonable fees to be collected related to new development so that the burdens of installing public improvements, the need for which is created by certain new development projects and which will benefit certain land in addition to such development projects. In addition to this, measures for construction traffic control must be met to ensure safety during work hours, stating that all work areas, lane closures, and all warning lights, flashers and devices used shall be protected, installed and provided in accordance with the current CALTRANS Manual of Traffic Controls and/or Work Area Traffic Control Handbook.

Future development on the Housing Sites facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update would be subject to discretionary permits and would be required to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements in the 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and the City’s Municipal Code. As a result, future housing development on the Housing Sites facilitated by the Project would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.11-10 through 4.11.11.)

2. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-11 through 4.11-15.) Explanation: California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) directs the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts to provide alternatives to Level of Service that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendment to the CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, to recommend the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts associated with land use and transportation projects.

In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. All agencies and projects Statewide are required to utilize the updated CEQA guidelines recommending use of VMT for evaluating transportation impacts as of July 1, 2020.

The updated CEQA Guidelines allow for lead agency discretion in establishing methodologies and thresholds provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures promote the intended goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are unavailable, Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using factors such as availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) [“OPR Technical Advisory”] provides technical considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, residential, and retail developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.

In the absence of VMT guidelines or thresholds established by the City of Signal Hill, a screening assessment for the Housing Sites’ development was performed based on available guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory.

As specified in the OPR Technical Advisory, lead agencies may use “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less than significant VMT impact. Many agencies have adopted screening thresholds for certain types of projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact because of their size, nature, or location. The following sections discuss the Housing Sites’ development relative to the screening thresholds recommended by the OPR Technical Advisory.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency
The Housing Sites’ development consists of the 6th Cycle Housing Element update for the City of Signal Hill for compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Since the Housing Sites’ development consists of an update for compliance with RHNA targets provided by SCAG, the Housing Sites’ development is considered to be consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Affordable Residential Development
Based on research documented in the OPR Technical Advisory, adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Even in locations with a closer to optimal job-housing match, low-income housing generates less VMT compared to market-rate housing. The OPR Technical Advisory states that evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for residential developments consisting of 100 percent affordable housing in infill locations; however, lead agencies may develop their own threshold for residential projects containing a mix of affordable housing based on local conditions and evidence. A project which includes any affordable residential units may take into account the effect of affordability on VMT generated by those units.

The Housing Sites’ development would allow for the development of 72412 additional housing units, including 161 very low income units and 78 low income units for a total of 239 affordable units (i.e., 33 percent affordable units). Table 4.11-2 of the Draft EIR shows a trip generation comparison between market rate and affordable housing based on affordable housing data collected by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. As shown in Table 4.11-2 of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ development is estimated to generate approximately 14 percent fewer trips compared to an equal number of units at 100 percent market rate. Therefore, the project VMT would be expected be similarly or further reduced since the trip generation comparison does not take into account the shorter trip lengths associated with affordable housing.

Transit Priority Area (TPA)
CEQA Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) states that certain projects within one-half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ration (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City;

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG]); or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.

Each of the Housing Sites is located within a high-quality transit area; therefore, the Housing Sites’ development may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

The Town Center North and Heritage Square Housing sites are expected to be developed a mixed-use sites, containing locally serving retail uses. As noted in the OPR Technical Advisory, new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips. By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving proximity, localserving retail tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume that local-serving retail (50,000 square feet or less) creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. The expected retail uses at each site would be less than 50,000 square feet and are envisioned as local community serving. As such, the potential retail portion of these housing sites is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Although the Housing Sites’ development may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on Office of Technical Advisory guidance for affordable housing and projects located within a transit priority area, a detailed VMT analysis was performed using the SCAG regional travel demand model. As previously noted, in the absence of VMT guidelines or thresholds established by the City of Signal Hill, the VMT impact analysis was performed based on available guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory. The OPR-recommended threshold of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita (i.e., population) is also consistent with the neighboring City of Long Beach guidelines. For purposes of this analysis, the existing regional VMT per capita has been evaluated based on existing County of Los Angeles average. This threshold was selected based on available guidance from OPR and the neighboring City of Long Beach in the absence of guidelines or thresholds established by City of Signal Hill; the selected threshold may be superseded based on supporting evidence if/when the City of Signal Hill establishes its own VMT thresholds.

A detailed VMT analysis was performed using the SCAG regional travel demand model. Model runs were performed by AFSHA Consulting, Inc. in accordance with OPR guidance regarding full trip length accounting. As shown in Table 4.11-3 of the Draft EIR, the Housing Sites’ development is estimated to generate 11.08 daily VMT per population for existing (year 2021) conditions. Based on the existing County of Los Angeles average VMT per population of 13.9, the regional threshold is equal to 11.8 daily VMT per population.

The affordable housing component of the Housing Sites’ development may be presumed to result in a less than significant impact based on available evidence cited in the OPR Technical Advisory. Each of the four Housing Sites are located within a high-quality transit area; therefore, the Housing Sites’ development may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact with implementation of the project design feature. Therefore, the Housing Sites’ development is forecast to result in no significant VMT impact based on the OPR-recommended threshold, as also adopted by the City of Long Beach, of 15% below the existing regional VMT and the project design requirements which would ensure consistency with the screening criteria. As such, impacts relating to VMT would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-11 through 4.11-15.)

3. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 65.) Explanation: The proposed Housing Element identifies four Housing Sites and would involve construction of 724 units over an 8-year period. Surrounding land uses, which are urban in nature (commercial industrial, general industrial), do not involve incompatible uses that would include farm equipment or other slow-moving vehicles that may be traveling along project area roadways.

Access points would be designed in accordance with City standards and approved by the City in consultation with other City departments, including public works, prior to construction. Additionally, all identified Housing Sites are contained on private property and does not include any public right of way serving the travelling public. Impacts to substantially increases hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 65.)

4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-15 through 4.11-16.) Explanation: The internal circulation network and any changes to the external circulation network associated with the implementation of subsequent projects facilitated under the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update would be subject to review by the City of Signal Hill and responsible emergency service agencies; thus, ensuring that the future project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access and design standards and adequate emergency access would be provided.

According to the City’s Safety Element, no major improvements are considered necessary to maintain emergency access within the City and future development in the City would be required to meet minimum roadway widths and subdivision design requirements as established by the City’s Municipal Code Titles 15 (Building and Construction) and 18 (Subdivisions) and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD).

Emergency access of future proposed projects facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update would be required to meet the LACoFD standards, which ensure that new developments provide adequate access and circulation for fire engines and other emergency vehicles and provide adequate space for appropriate positioning of emergency response crews during emergencies. Therefore, since the future development would be subject to approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and required to demonstrate compliance with standards pertaining to emergency access, prior to the issuance of a construction permit, there would be a less than significant impact on emergency access. Additionally, during the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with the LACoFD and Signal Hill Police Department to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into each of the future housing development projects, and that adequate circulation and access (e.g., adequate turning radii for fire trucks) is provided in the traffic and circulation components of the housing developments. With these measures implemented for future development, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.11-15 through 4.11-16.)
R. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 69.) Explanation: Development of the Housing Sites would require the replacement of old and installation of new utility infrastructure to serve the proposed new uses. The installation of infrastructure would occur during site construction and the depths and locations would be considered in the grading plan. Impacts related to construction of on-site utilities infrastructure would not result in any unique or more intensive types of impacts than the grading required to support development. Off-site, local connections to the existing municipal storm drain, water, and wastewater facilities, as well as electricity lines and natural gas mains within the surrounding roadways would be required to support residential development on the Housing Sites. Connections to existing water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities exists within the City and surrounding the Housing Sites. The construction associated with the utility service extensions and connections would likely result in generating dust, noise, or and/or circulation impacts. These impacts would be temporary and short-term, occurring only for portions of a normal construction workday and only in those areas where utility improvements are being constructed.

Impacts related to construction of off-site utilities connections would not result in any unique or more intensive types of impacts than the grading required for construction on the Housing Sites.

Since the development of the Housing Sites would not require the relocation or upgrade of utility services off-site and the impacts associated with the installation and extension of infrastructure on-site as well at the off-site connections would be temporary and conducted in accordance with the routine construction control methods noted above, development of the Housing Sites would result in less than significant impacts. (Initial Study, p. 69.)

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 70.) Explanation: Water demand from residential development at the Housing Sites would consist of interior plumbing devices, such as toilets, urinals, and sinks, and also outdoor irrigation of landscape areas. Consumption rates would depend on the individual tenant composition and the number of plumbing fixtures installed in each of the buildings.

According to SCAG forecasts, population in the City is approximately 11,600 in 2016 and is anticipated to increase to 12,500 in 2045. The normal supply and demand totals from the Signal Hill UWMP show a demand of 1,897AF in 2020 and increases to 2,157 AF in 2040, an increase of 260 AF.

The anticipated water supply in 2030 is 4,369 AF. It is expected that the Housing Sites would generate an additional population of up to 1,355 people to the City of Signal Hill. The additional population would represent approximately 142 percent of the forecasted population growth from SCAG. Based on the population increase, the anticipated housing developments would increase the local water usage by approximately 372 AF by 2029, resulting in a water demand of 2,469 AF in 2029 from full build out of the Housing Sites, which is within the service capacity of 4,369 AF.

The City’s water supplies are considered to be stable and sufficient to support expected growth that could occur over the next several years. As such, the Project would not have a significant impact on water supplies. (Initial Study, p. 70.)

3. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 70.) Explanation: Signal Hill sanitary sewers connect to the City of Long Beach sewer line, which flows into regional wastewater facilities maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 29. Since population growth from full development of the Housing Sites is consistent with the growth projections for the Los Angeles County, it is expected that the additional wastewater flow associated with the development of the Housing Sites can be accommodated within existing and already planned facilities. Impacts from the development of the Housing Sites would be less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 70.)

4. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 70.) Explanation: In relation to solid waste standards, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) reports target per capita disposal goals which are expressed in pounds per day (ppd) per dwelling unit to track the solid waste generation per person. As of 2019 in Signal Hill, the most recent reporting year, CalRecycle reported that Signal Hill had an average waste disposal rate of 4.3 ppd per employee, surpassing the City’s per capita disposal target of 8.9 ppd per population. Development of Housing Sites would generate additional solid waste; however, there are no unique characteristics of the proposed land use which would result in a higher than normal level of waste generation and disposal, compared to other similar land uses in the City.

The County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works is responsible for continuing to ensure there is adequate landfill capacity for disposal of municipal wastes generated throughout the region. Through its Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), the County regularly conducts needs assessments, forecasts of future waste generation and disposal patterns, and projections of landfill disposal capacities. Analysis prepared for the County’s IWMP most recent 2016 annual report determined that there are at least 15 years of remaining landfill capacity on a countywide basis.

Because there are no unique solid waste generation characteristics from the development of the Housing Sites, such developments would not impair the City’s continuing efforts to achieve and surpass its target rate for rates of waste generation for nonresidential land uses. As such, the residential developments would not significantly affect the capacity of the landfills serving this area and would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste goals. (Initial Study, p. 70.)

5. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 71 through 72.) Explanation: In the short term, future construction activities at the Housing Sites would generate construction-related waste. Section 8.08.55 of the City’s Municipal Code requires construction and demolition debris generated in Signal Hill to be recycled to the greatest extent feasible to comply with state-mandated waste diversion requirements. Pursuant to Section 5.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, at least 65 percent of all nonhazardous construction and demolition waste must be recycled or salvaged to avoid landfill disposal. A construction waste management plan must be submitted and implemented, with verification by the City’s Building Official, to comply with this requirement.

Future residential development on the Housing Sites would comply with the City’s solid waste reduction programs, which are designed to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. These statutes and regulations include the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, and the City’s solid waste disposal policies and practices.

The California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for solid waste.

EDCO offers recycling programs to Signal Hill businesses that allow employees and/or tenants to collect a variety of recyclable materials.

Interested businesses would contract directly with EDCO to devise a recycling program tailored to the business and/or tenant.

Construction and operation of the Housing Sites is required to comply with the current solid waste franchise’s recycling system; therefore, it would comply with the City’s and California’s solid waste disposal regulations. As such, future Housing Site developments would not result in a significant impact involving compliance with solid waste regulatory standards. (Initial Study, pp. 71 through 72.)
S. WILDFIRE

1. Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, pp. 73 through 74.) Explanation: Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the local government, State, or the federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are the areas in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires.

The SRA forms one large area over 31 million acres to which the Cal Fire provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.

Local responsibility areas (LRA) include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by Cal Fire under contract to local government.54 LACoFD provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the County. Cal Fire uses an extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in LRAs. The local responsibility area hazard rating reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) are identified by Moderate, High and Very High in an SRA, and Very High in an LRA. The City is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as FHSZ.

As such, the development of the Housing Sites would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impacts would occur. (Initial Study, pp. 73 through 74.)

2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 74.)
Explanation: As previously discussed, the City is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as FHSZ. As such, slope, prevailing winds, or other factors would not exacerbate wildfire risks or contribute toward the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and no impact would occur. (Initial Study, p. 74.)

3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such a roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 74.)
Explanation: The City is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as FHSZ.56 While residential development would involve infrastructure improvements along streets adjacent to the Housing Sites, improvements would not be located in or near wildfire areas. Therefore, development of the Housing Sites would not require additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk and no temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would occur. Future Housing Site developments would have no impacts on installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, no mitigation measures is required. (Initial Study, p. 74.)

4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 74.)
Explanation: Since the four thresholds apply if a project site is located in a designated wildland fire hazard area and the City is not located in a designated wildland fire hazard area, there are no impacts concerning wildfire hazards. (Initial Study, p. 74.)
SECTION III.

IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

A. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-8 through 4.12-9.)
Explanation: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) defines archaeological resources as any resource that “has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.” Archaeological resources are features, such as tools, utensils, carvings, fabric, building foundations, etc., that document evidence of past human endeavors and that may be historically or culturally important to a significant earlier community.

The Housing Site locations have not been identified by the City of Signal Hill General Plan Environmental Resources Element as containing any archaeological resources.13 As previously mentioned, the Cultural Resources Records Search included the area of a half-mile radius around the Housing Sites, for the purpose of identifying any known cultural resources on and within the vicinity of the Housing Sites.

The records search identified two prehistoric shell midden archaeological sites within the half-mile buffer around the Project area. Additionally, the remnants of previously oil drilling facilities located on each of the four Housing Sites were found dating back to the early 1930s. The prehistoric sites identified within the cultural resource review would not be affected by development of the Housing Sites since the development of each site would not extend beyond the boundaries of each identified Housing Site land areas. The Housing Sites are also highly and frequently disturbed due to oil drilling activities. Because of the existing and historical disturbances noted, it is highly unlikely that any intact buried archaeological remains would be present within or near the boundaries of the Housing Sites.

However, considering the age of the oil drilling equipment and the proximity of the prehistoric sites that were identified by the report, the potential exists for unearthing archeological resources. As such, potential impacts could be significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-8 through 4.12-9.) The following Mitigation Measure (MM) has been identified:

MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities
• The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American monitor from (or approved by) the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (the “Kizh” or the “Tribe”) - the direct lineal descendants of the project location. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project, at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” includes, but is not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
• A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be provided to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity for the project, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
• The project applicant/developer shall provide the Tribe with a minimum of 30 days advance written notice of the commencement of any project ground-disturbing activity so that the Tribe has sufficient time to secure and schedule a monitor for the project.
• The project applicant/developer shall hold at least one (1) preconstruction sensitivity/educational meeting prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, where at a senior member of the Tribe will inform and educate the project’s construction and managerial crew and staff members (including any project subcontractors and consultants) about the TCR mitigation measures and compliance obligations, as well as places of significance located on the project site (if any), the appearance of potential TCRs, and other informational and operational guidance to aid in the project’s compliance with the TCR mitigation measures. • The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request.
• Native American monitoring for the project shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation from a designated project point of contact to the Tribe that all ground-disturbing activities and all phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site and at any off-site project location are complete; or (2) written notice by the Tribe to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase (known by the Tribe at that time) at the project site and at any off-site project location possesses the potential to impact TCRs. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-8 through

4.12-9.)
The implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR-1 would ensure that if archeological resources were encountered during development of the sites, impacts to those resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-17 through 4.4-18.) Explanation: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms that have lived in a region in the geologic past and whose remains are found in the accompanying geologic strata. This type of fossil record represents the primary source of information on ancient life forms, since the majority of species that have existed on earth from this era are extinct. PRC Section 5097.5 specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 622.5 includes penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources.

Based on a records search conducted by PaleoWest (see Appendix I), there are no fossil localities that lie directly within the boundaries of any of the proposed Housing Sites. However, the records search indicates that within the Project area, two known prehistoric archaeological sites are within a half-mile buffer. Since the proposed Project requires excavations for a housing development, new ground disturbances are anticipated. Ground disturbing activities portions of the Project may result in significant impacts to paleontological resources, such as destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources. As such, Project impacts are potentially significant due to the unknown presence of subsurface paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-17 through 4.4-18.) The following mitigation measure is proposed to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level:

MM GEO-1: If paleontological resources are uncovered during construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities in the area of the find shall cease until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find, and identified the appropriate course of action in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report according to current professional standards. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Project activities shall not proceed until the analysis and treatment of on-site paleontological resources has been approved by the City. Scheduling of construction-related deliveries, haul trips, etc., so as to occur outside the commuter peak hours to the extent feasible.

Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that any paleontological resources would be identified before they are damaged or destroyed and are properly evaluated and treated. This would ensure potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

C. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-17 through 4.6-19, 4.6-24 through 4.6-25.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly construct new housing in the City but would promote and facilitate development of new residential land uses. However, implementation of the Housing Element Update (HEU) would facilitate new residential construction in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Future construction on the Housing Sites would involve site clearing; bioremediation of soils and subsurface materials; demolition of previous structures and piping remnants; daylighting and leak testing of oil wells; construction of new residential buildings; and the installation of utilities and landscaping. These activities may require the transport of contaminated soil and the use of hazardous substances during construction. In addition, construction activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants, paints and paint thinners, glues, cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents) and possibly pesticides and herbicides. Future residential land uses would not be expected to transport, use, store or dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials.

Construction
Construction activities on the Housings Sites are anticipated to involve the use of typical materials that are potentially hazardous, including vehicle fuels, paints, mastics, solvents, and other acidic or alkaline solutions that would require special handling, transport, and disposal. Additionally, the demolition and removal of existing structures and facility remnants such as underground pipes and the daylighting of oil wells within the Project Site could potentially result in the exposure of hazardous materials such as ACMs, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous building materials in some form as part of the building materials, such as PCBs, mercury or chlorofluorocarbons in fluorescent lighting and electrical switches as well as potentially hazardous VOCs in on-site soils.

In accordance with City, State, and federal regulations, an evaluation of hazardous building materials would be performed prior to the start of demolition of any construction to determine if remediation and abatement of ACMs and lead-based paint is required. The ACMs and lead-based paint containing hazardous waste and debris encountered/generated during demolition activities would be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Any other waste discovered such as fluorescent bulbs, ballast, thermostats, electrical switches, and batteries would also be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State and federal regulations. Through compliance with applicable local, State and federal regulations, the proposed Project impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during building demolition would be less than significant.

All potentially hazardous materials used during construction would be used and stored in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. As the use and transport of these hazardous materials would be limited, in terms of volume and duration, these materials are not considered a significant hazard to the public or environment. Additionally, the Los Angeles County Fire Department would have the authority to perform inspections and enforce federal and State laws governing the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.

Furthermore, any spills or leakages encountered during construction would be required to be remediated in accordance with the State and local regulations for hazardous waste cleanup. The potential for construction materials to cause contamination would be reduced through the implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), in accordance with NPDES.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 would require the preparation of a soil management plan (SMP) prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities as approved by the SCAQMD would be completed prior to construction activities. MM HAZ-1 would ensure the SMP would provide instructions for appropriate actions in the event discolored or odiferous soils are discovered during grading. Abandoned oil wells and pipelines and idle oil wells present on the Housing Sites would be located, daylighted and methane gas leak tested and fitted with vent cones and risers through incorporation of MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-4.

Daylighting oil wells and pipelines involves the disturbance of soils and monitoring for VOCs which are required to be below 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Soil impacted with TPH and metals may be hauled off-site for disposal to a licensed landfill upon completion of a waste profile and acceptance by the receiving facility. Waste classification will be conducted in accordance with 22 CCR Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3 and 40 CFR 261 Subpart C. The on-site TPH impacted soil may meet the criteria for use as daily cover. On-site treatment of metals (lead) impacted soil may be implemented prior to transfer off site for disposal. Trucks will follow the designated hauling route as required by the City of Signal Hill (see Appendix F.1—Appendix F.16 of the Draft EIR). All applicable regulations would be followed to minimize adverse exposure of contaminated soil to the public.

Based on the identification of the existing conditions at the Project Site described previously, as well as the use of hazardous substances during construction of the Project, there is the potential for an adverse impact to the environment and other sensitive receptors through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, during Project construction, all activities that relate to existing on-site environmental conditions would be subject to the requirements of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 and applicable local, State, and federal regulations relating to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazards and hazardous materials which appropriately address all of the environmental conditions that are present at the Project Site. Through required compliance with these mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazards and hazardous materials during construction and impacts would be less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-19.) The following Mitigation Measures (MMs) have been identified and are based on available information provided in various reports for the Housing Sites:

MM HAZ-1 Prepare a Soil Management Plan Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbing Activities. A soil management plan should be prepared prior to any soil disturbance activities to be conducted on site. This soil management plan should provide instructions for the contractor to implement in the event discolored or odiferous soils are discovered during any grading operations. A South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 Permit and Compliance Plan should be obtained from the SCAQMD due to the presence of volatiles prior to the start of soil disturbance operations.

MM HAZ-2 Daylight Abandoned Oil Wells. Previously abandoned oil wells should be located, daylighted and methane gas leak tested prior to the installation of vent cones and vent risers pursuant to the City of Signal Hill’s Oil and Gas Code §16.24.030 and §16.24.040. As the act of daylighting oil wells involves soil disturbance, monitoring for volatile organic compounds will be required under the R1166 permit/compliance plan. The R1166 permit limits the release of volatiles in soils to 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less, however some volatiles will be released into the ambient atmosphere during these activities, decreasing the residual concentrations previously detected in site soils and soil vapor. Although designed to capture and vent methane to the atmosphere, other volatile organic compounds in the subsurface (both in the soil matrix and soil vapor) also will be captured and vented by this system.

MM HAZ-3 Daylight Idle Oil Wells Idle wells should be located, daylighted and abandoned in accordance with the State of California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) requirements and in accordance with the City of Signal Hill’s Oil and Gas Code §16.22 and §16.24, and under the R1166 permit/compliance plan requirements.

MM HAZ-4 Daylight Abandoned Pipelines. Abandoned pipelines should be located, daylighted and removed in accordance with the Soil Management Plan and R1166 permit/compliance plan. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-24 through

4.6-25.)

2. Accident or Upset
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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-19 through 4.6-20, 4.6-25.)
Explanation: Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the temporary use of hazardous materials including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids.

Such use which could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination, if not properly stored, used, or disposed.

However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or one time in nature. Project construction workers would be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials use.

Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of constructionrelated hazardous materials and waste would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. These include the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, CUPA, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. As required by law, notification to Underground Service Alert would be made. Prior to construction an attempt to coordinate with the owners/operators of high priority underground lines would be made in order to avoid damage to high-pressure pipelines and natural gas/petroleum pipelines in the area. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. For example, if a spill or leakage of petroleum products occurs during construction activities, it would be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the impacted area would be remediated in compliance with applicable State and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant.

Phase I and Phase II ESAs, Methane Gas Summary Reports and HHRAs provided in Appendix F.1— Appendix F.16 of the Recirculated Draft EIR summarize existing pollutants on and beneath the surface of the Project Site and develops appropriate remediation actions to be completed which would be implemented prior to construction. MM HAZ-5 would require a Methane Mitigation System to be installed below the foundations of future residential buildings on the Housing Sites. The Methane Mitigation System would eliminate the exposure pathway of methane and other chemicals of concern (COCs) that remain on-site and would mitigate vapor intrusion ensuring the Housing Sites are safe for future residential uses. Further, MM HAZ-6 would ensure future residential uses are safe by requiring the paved areas on the Housing Sites greater than 5,000 square feet and contiguous to future residential buildings to be vented with designs to prevent surface water infiltration. Groundwater sampling data indicates there would be little to no chance COCs on the Housing Sites would affect the quality groundwater quality.

Accordingly, implementation of MM HAZ-5 and MM HAZ-6 prior to Project approval and compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner which would minimize potential impacts associated with upset or accident conditions. Potential impacts regarding hazardous waste upset or accident conditions would be less than significant. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19 through 4.6-20.)
The following Mitigation Measures (MMs) have been identified and are based on available information provided in various reports for the Housing Sites:

MM HAZ-5 Install Methane Mitigation Systems Subslab of Proposed Buildings Institutional controls, i.e., a methane mitigation system to be installed subslab of any proposed buildings, pursuant to the City of Signal Hill’s Oil and Gas Code §16.24.080 will effectively mitigate risks and hazards due to vapor intrusion to negligible conditions ensuring the site is safe for any future intended use including as a residential property. A redeveloped property precludes exposure to site soils by future residential occupants.

Methane mitigation subslab of proposed buildings is recommended based on the Methane Assessments. The methane mitigation system should consist of a subslab impervious membrane placed in between geotextile or geocloth to protect it from sand above and the 4” thick gravel blanket below in conformance with the City of Signal Hill Oil and Gas Code §16.24.080 and City of Signal Hill Project Development Guide (June 2020). Perforated horizontal vent pipes should be placed in the 4” thick gravel blanket and tied into vertical vent risers (typically cast iron) placed in between the interior and exterior walls, less than 100-feet apart, extending a minimum of 3-feet above the roof line and should not terminate less than 10-feet from any opening (City of Signal Hill June 2020).

MM HAZ-6 Include Vents in Impervious Pavement if Area is 5,000 Square Feet or Greater and Contiguous to Buildings
If an impervious surface paving area is 5,000 square feet or greater and contiguous to the proposed buildings, the paving should have vents spaced less than 100-ft apart consisting of four sided concrete boxes with traffic rated grates and 4” thick gravel blanket at the base. The vents should be designed to prevent surface water infiltration. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p.

4.6-25.)
D. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19 through 4.8-22.)
Explanation: Construction
Noise from construction activities will be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance to noisesensitive receivers. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Housing Sites. Each phase would involve the use of different types of construction equipment and, therefore, have its own distinct noise characteristics.

On-Site Construction Noise
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would be used during construction produce maximum noise levels of 73 dBA to 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 4.8- 11: Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Project Construction Equipment of the Draft EIR.

To characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage was calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.

Construction equipment operates at its noisiest levels for certain percentages of time during operation. Equipment such as excavators, graders, and loaders would operate at different percentages over the course of an hour. During a construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction equipment are operated concurrently. The estimated construction noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which up to nine pieces of construction equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously, given the physical size of the Housing Sites and logistical limitations, and with the noise equipment located at the construction area nearest to the affected receivers to present a conservative impact analysis. This is considered a worst-case evaluation because construction activities would typically use fewer pieces of equipment simultaneously at any given time and, accordingly, would likely generate lower noise levels than reported herein. Separate forecasts of construction noise levels from on-site construction at the nearest sensitive receptor for each Housing Site were completed. The forecast noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors to the Housing Sites from construction activity are shown in Table 4.8-12: Construction Maximum Noise Estimates of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.8-12 of the Draft EIR, construction noise levels at the Walnut Bluff Site and Town Center Northwest Site would not exceed the significance threshold. However, construction noise levels at the Orange Bluff Site and Heritage Square Site would result in a maximum increase of outdoor noise levels up to 7.1 dBA and 12.4 dBA over the significance threshold, respectively.

Consistent with goals of the City’s General Plan, the Project would be required to minimize the noise impacts associated with point-sources and ambient noise levels throughout the community. The Project would utilize construction best management practices to reduce construction related noise to the greatest extent possible. Construction best management practices are intended to prevent the use of non-standard construction equipment, unnecessary idling, equipment that is not appropriately muffled, and not to increase overall construction noise, in general, during allowable hours.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would require the use of optimal muffler systems that would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dB or more. Additionally, limiting the number of noisegenerating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously used on a Housing Site to no more than one or two pieces of heavy-duty off-road equipment would further reduce construction noise levels by approximately 14 dBA.

A temporary noise barrier can achieve a 5 dBA noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight to the receiver. After it breaks the line-of-sight, it can achieve approximately 1.5 dBA of additional noise level reduction for each 1 meter (3.3 feet) of barrier height. With implementation of these common practices, construction noise levels would be reduced by a minimum of 29 dB. Consequently, with implementation of MM N-1, maximum construction noise levels at the Orange Bluff Site and Heritage Square Site would be reduced to below the significance threshold.

Moreover, the Project would be required to comply with Section 9.16.050 of the SHMC which exempts noise from construction as long as construction activities do not occur outside of the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays. Accordingly, with adherence to the SHMC, on-site construction noise impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.8-19 through 4.8-22.)
MM N-1 Construction Noise
In the event construction noise levels increase to or within the “generally unacceptable” or “land use discouraged” land use compatibility for residential uses, the Applicant must utilize, without limitation, the following construction best management practices:
• Shroud or shield all impact tools, and muffle or shield all intake and exhaust port on power equipment to reduce construction noise by 10 dB or more.
• If feasible, schedule grading activities so as to avoid operating numerous pieces of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, or rollers) simultaneously in close proximity to the boundary of properties of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding a Housing Site to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 5 to 10 dBA.
• Where feasible, temporary barriers including, without limitation, sound blankets on existing fences and walls, or freestanding portable sound walls, must be placed as close to the noise source or as close to the receptor as possible and break the line of sight between the source and receptor where modeled levels exceed applicable standards.

E. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12- 6 through 4.12-8.)
Explanation: Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, introduced into CEQA tribal cultural resource as a class of cultural resources and additional requirements relating to Native American consultation. A tribal cultural resource may be considered significant if it is included in a local or State register of historical resources, is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1, is a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1, or is a historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource described in PRC Section 21083.2, or is a nonunique archaeological resource if it conforms with the above criteria.

Based on the records search conducted for the Project and the City’s correspondence with the Tribes, no known tribal cultural resources were identified on or adjacent to the Housing Sites. The records search identified five resources within a half-mile buffer of the Housing Sites including: two pre-historic sites (Shell Midden), and three historic buildings (Lomita Gasoline Company/Petrolane Office Building, a Single-Family Residence, and Lomita Gasoline Company/Petrolane Compressor House). These resources were not identified as listed or eligible for listing within the CRHR. Additionally, a review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs was conducted and found that all four Housing Sites included petroleum wells and associated infrastructure dating back to the early 1930s.

All of the Housing Sites are highly disturbed due to past developments and/or oil extraction activities. Existing developments on Housing Sites include existing building structures, parking lots, and operating and abandoned oil wells.

Future development at the identified Housing Sites would include grounddisturbing activities through its site preparation and construction activities.

Subterranean levels are not anticipated; thus ground disturbance would be relatively limited. Given that the Sites have been extensively altered by past development and oil extraction activities, there is a low potential for encountering subsurface cultural resources.

Regardless, given the cultural history of the area, ground disturbance has the potential to unearth unknown cultural artifacts. As a result of its outreach efforts, the City has agreed to incorporate the mitigation measures commonly recommended by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

The following Mitigation Measures (MMs) have been identified and are based on available information and the consultation process described above.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be provided to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity for the project, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

The project applicant/developer shall provide the Tribe with a minimum of 30 days advance written notice of the commencement of any project ground-disturbing activity so that the Tribe has sufficient time to secure and schedule a monitor for the project.

The project applicant/developer shall hold at least one (1) pre-construction sensitivity/educational meeting prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, where at a senior member of the Tribe will inform and educate the project’s construction and managerial crew and staff members (including any project subcontractors and consultants) about the TCR mitigation measures and compliance obligations, as well as places of significance located on the project site (if any), the appearance of potential TCRs, and other informational and operational guidance to aid in the project’s compliance with the TCR mitigation measures.

The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request.

Native American monitoring for the project shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation from a designated project point of contact to the Tribe that all ground-disturbing activities and all phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site and at any off-site project location are complete; or (2) written notice by the Tribe to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase (known by the Tribe at that time) at the project site and at any off-site project location possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

MM TCR-2 Discovery of TCRs, Human Remains, and/or Grave Goods • Upon the discovery of a TCR, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) shall cease. The Tribe shall be immediately informed of the discovery, and a Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist will promptly report to the location of the discovery to evaluate the TCR and advise the project manager regarding the matter, protocol, and any mitigating requirements. No project construction activities shall resume in the surrounding 50 feet of the discovered TCR unless and until the Tribe has completed its assessment/evaluation/recovery of the discovered TCR and surveyed the surrounding area.
• The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate in its sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including but not limited to, educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
• If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site or at any off-site project location, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Native American “human remains” are defined to include “an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.” (Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (d)(1).) Funerary objects, referred to as “associated grave goods,” shall be treated in the same manner and with the same dignity and respect as human remains. (Pub. Res. Code 5097.98(a), (d)(1) and (2).) • Any discoveries of human skeletal material or human remains shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner (Health & Safety Code § 7050.5(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e)(1)(B)), and all ground-disturbing project ground-disturbing activities on site and in any other area where the presence of human remains and/or grave goods are suspected to be present, shall immediately halt and remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e).) If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
• Thereafter, construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or grave goods, if the Tribe determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Tribal monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(f).) • Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or grave goods.
• Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (nonTCRs) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

MM TCR-3. Any discovery of human remains and/or grave goods discovered and/or recovered shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented for all discovered Native American human remains and/or grave goods. Tribal Traditions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects and/or the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated “grave goods” (aka, burial goods or funerary objects) are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later, as well as other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains.

Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully recovered (and documented) on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to divert the project while keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before grounddisturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be agreed upon by the Tribe and the landowner, and shall be protected in perpetuity.

Each occurrence of human remains and associated grave goods will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, grave goods, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items will be retained and shall be reburied within six months of recovery.

The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches.

All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

With the implementation of MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3 any as yet unknown cultural artifacts that may be unearthed during ground disturbing activities would be appropriately identified and protected. As such, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-6 through 4.12-8.)
SECTION IV.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

A. AESTHETICS
The identified housing sites are located on infill sites as defined by Public Resource Code Section 21099 which states that aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. The area is considered a transit priority area (TPA) based on the SCAG map of TPAs for plan year 2045, developed for the SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and based on the bus services of Long Beach Transit.2 As such, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, future housing development at the identified Housing Sites would be comparable in height to its surrounding developments, would be required to comply with the requirements of the building standards of the Signal Hill Municipal Code and would be subject to design review by the City to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. As such, build out of the Housing Sites would not have an adverse effect on aesthetics. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-1.) Therefore, impacts to aesthetics would be less than cumulatively considerable.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The City does not contain areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Farmland of Local Potential, Grazing Land, Forest or Timberland. As such, the development of housing on the identified housing sites would have no direct or indirect effect on agriculture or forestry resources. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-1.) The Project would have no cumulative impacts.

C. AIR QUALITY
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for air quality. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed Project is the South Coast Air Basin.

Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The discussion in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts. To summarize the conclusion with respect to that analysis, the daily maximum regional construction emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds prior to mitigation. Therefore, regional construction emissions resulting from construction of the Housing Sites would result in a less than significant short-term regional air quality impact during construction. In addition, operational emission levels would not exceed the SCAQMD daily regional thresholds and, as such, would result in less than significant operation impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-34.) Accordingly, the proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions, and the proposed Project’s cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The identified Housing Sites are disturbed sites containing scattered ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees. The General Plan Environmental Resources Element does not identify any sensitive natural communities on or within the vicinity of the Housing Sites. There are no rivers or streams and no riparian habitat or any other kind of sensitive natural community in or within the immediate vicinity of the identified Housing Sites. The lands surrounding these sites are developed with streets, light industrial, educational, residential, and commercial uses, which have disturbed and replaced natural habitat. No portions of the City are located within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The City of Signal Hill does have a street tree ordinance which establishes standards for the planting, removal, replacement, and maintenance of all City street trees in accordance with tree species recommendations contained in the Street Tree Master Plan.

Development of the Sites would not conflict with this ordinance. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-2.) Therefore, the Project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources and impacts on biological resources would be less than cumulatively significant.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs found that all four Housing Sites included petroleum wells and associated infrastructure dating back to the early 1930s. However, the features on the housing sites have mostly been removed or abandoned and what remains do not represent unique historic events; as such, the Project would not have an adverse effect on the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-

10.) Future development projects have the potential to impact unknown archaeological resources and may present a significant cumulative impact to those resources. However, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would apply to archaeological resources inadvertently discovered during construction activities and would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-

11.) Future development projects will have to demonstrate that the project includes adequate measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts to historical and archaeological impacts inadvertently discovered during construction activities in accordance with CEQA. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that the proposed Project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources, historical resources, and previously undiscovered buried human remains.

F. ENERGY
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F recommends a quantification of the Housing Site developments’ energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the development’s life cycle, including construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal. The developments’ energy requirements were calculated based on land use inputs from CalEEMod for electricity and natural gas usage. The calculations also considered energy efficiency measures, such as Title 24, 2016 CALGreen, and vehicle fuel economy standards. As energy consumption during construction activities would be relatively negligible, development of the Housing Sites is not anticipated to affect regional energy consumption in years during the construction period. In summary, energy consumption during Housing Site construction and operations in the context of regional supplies would be relatively negligible and energy requirements are within SCE’s and LBER’s forecasted supply delivery capacity. Additionally, electricity demand during construction and operation of the Housing Site developments would have a negligible effect on the overall capacity of SCE’s power grid base peak demand conditions and LBER’s forecasted demand.

Moreover, the Housing Sites’ gas and diesel fuel demand related to vehicle travel and on-site operations would account for a small percentage of the forecasted gas and diesel consumption.

Furthermore, these forecasts of energy consumption are likely to overstate the actual Housing Site development consumption as it is anticipated that the recent trend of stricter regulatory requirements with regard to energy efficiency that have occurred over the last twenty years would continue through the implementation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and into the future, such as more energy efficient Title 24 requirements, as well as energy efficiency requirements related to achieving the SB 350 goals to double energy efficiency standards by the year 2030, that would occur throughout the construction and operation of the Housing Sites. As electricity and natural gas usage at the Housing Sites would comply with Title 24 standards as well as CalGreen and the City’s green building program requirements, Housing Sites’ construction and operations would comply with applicable energy standards with regards to electricity and natural gas usage. Trucks and equipment used during proposed construction activities would comply with CARB’s antiidling regulations, as well as the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation. Although these regulations are focused on reducing criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with these regulations would also result in a more efficient use of construction-related fuel consumption. In addition, during Housing Site operations, vehicles traveling to and from the sites would comply with CAFE fuel economy standards as well as with Pavley standards and LCFS, which are designed to reduce vehicle GHG emissions but would also result in fuel savings in addition to CAFE standards.

Therefore, Housing Site construction and operational activities would comply with existing energy standards with regards to transportation fuel consumption.

In terms of transportation-related energy usage, the Housing Sites would be consistent with the energy efficiency policies emphasized by the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Specifically, the Housing Sites would provide housing in close proximity to public transit. Per SCAG, all Housing Sites are located within, or partially within a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) and are served by existing Long Beach Transit (LBT) bus lines along Orange Avenue and E. Willow Street. As a result, these locational attributes create opportunities for reductions in both the number and length of vehicle trips. These reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled would reduce gas and diesel fuel consumption. Moreover, during the operational lifetime of the Housing Sites, newer vehicles sold on the market would be required to comply with CAFE fuel economy standards expected to incrementally take effect. Accordingly, fuel consumption is anticipated to decrease each year through implementation of regulations that require higher energy efficiencies. Based on the above, development of the Housing Sites would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-19.) Therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The analysis in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR indicated no rare or special geological features or soil types on the Project site that would be affected by project activities and no other known activities or projects with activities that affect the geology and soils of this site. In addition, the proposed Project, as with all foreseeable projects, would be required to comply with the applicable state and local requirements, including the 2019 California Building Code and the Signal Hill Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative geotechnical and soil impacts is less than significant.

Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially affect paleontological resources. The cumulative effect of the proposed Project is the continued loss of these resources. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that any paleontological resources would be identified before they are damaged or destroyed and are properly evaluated and treated to ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact paleontological resources; however, it should be noted that each development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the Project's contribution to the cumulative destruction of known and unknown paleontological resources throughout the City would be reduced to a less than significant level.

H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Nor have SCAQMD, OPR, CARB, CAPCOA, or any other state or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the Project. Assessing the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change involves: (1) developing pertinent inventories of GHG emissions, and (2) considering project consistency with applicable emission reduction strategies and goals. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19.)
The impact of project-related GHG emissions would not result is a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution . Additionally, the proposed Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements which would further reduce GHG emissions. Further, the proposed Project, along with the other cumulative projects would not conflict with SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, the City’s 2016 Green City Annual Progress Report, or the City’s General Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25.) Therefore, the Project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.

I. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The contribution of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal with implementation of the Project is minimal, and combined hazardous materials effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City and immediate area would not be significant.

Future development pursuant to the Project may involve the use of hazardous substances during construction of the Project, as well as the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

However, during Project construction, all activities that relate to existing on-site environmental conditions would be subject to the requirements of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 and applicable local, State, and federal regulations relating to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazards and hazardous materials which appropriately address all of the environmental conditions that are present at the Project site. MM HAZ-5 and MM HAZ-6 would ensure potential impacts to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant Compliance with these mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures would ensure less than significant impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-18 through 4.6-19.) The Project operation would involve the types and amounts of materials typically used of those by residential neighborhoods and neighborhood uses, such as surface and floor cleaning products utilized for routine janitorial cleaning procedures. All potentially hazardous materials to be used during construction and operation of the Project and all other projects in the cumulative area would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in accordance with all applicable standards and regulations, including but not limited to, those set forth by the federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Acts. Any associated risks would be reduced to less than significant with implementation and compliance with these existing laws and regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-19.)
For the reasons outlined above, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are cumulatively considerable; therefore, cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts are considered less than significant.

J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Housing development associated with the Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would be required to comply with the existing regulatory systems including permitting under California’s WDRs and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.

Further, the Signal Hill Municipal Code, Chapter 12.16, Storm Water/Urban Runoff, contains requirements for post-construction stormwater activities and facility operations of development and redevelopment projects to comply with the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). In part, adherence requires integrating low-impact development (LID) design principles to lessen the water quality impacts of development through biofiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall harvest. Specifically, a LID plan would be required for each individual development project on the Housing Sites to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code (Section 12.16.114, New development/redevelopment pollutant reduction).

Anticipated development of the Housing Sites does not include any groundwater extraction wells because all water demand would be met through piped connections to the City of Signal Hill’s municipal water system. The housing sites do not feature any natural water features and are not within flood zones and are not close enough to bodies of water to be affected by Tsunami or seiche event. Based on the preceding, hydrology impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

6.0-2.) Therefore, the Project’s incremental hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As discussed in Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Project would be consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan policies regarding noise and land use, the City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Code, the Special Purpose Housing Specific Plan, the Town Center Northwest Specific Plan District, and Heritage Square Specific Plan. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-22 through 4.7-31.) The future development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update, as well as all proposed development in the City, would be subject to its own General Plan consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plan and policies. For this reason, the related projects are anticipated to be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, or would be subject to allowable exceptions; further, they would be subject to CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review as applicable. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute a significant cumulative land use compatibility impact.

L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The City’s General Plan does not identify the Housing Sites as having significant mineral deposits of any kind, nor are they located in an area delineated as a mineral resource recovery site. The implementation of the Project could result in the deactivation of 26 active oil drilling wells. Given the extent of drilling activity within the Long Beach oil field, removal of the active wells on the housing sites would not result in the substantial loss of a mineral resource. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-3.) Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

M. NOISE
Construction
Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in close proximity generate noise concurrently. Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance such that construction not within close proximity would not have a cumulative effect.

Chapter 9.16.050 the SHMC exempts construction activities from the chapter’s provisions during daytime hours when these activities would occur. Specifically, Section 9.16.050 of the SHMC states no person shall carry on any construction activities, including the erection, demolition, excavation, modification, alteration or repair of any building or structures, or any other activities creating construction noise as defined in this section other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays. The Housing sites are not expected to be constructed simultaneously and there are no known projects immediately adjacent to the Housing Sites that are expected to be built concurrently. Therefore, the construction noise of the Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative effects. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-27.) Operational Noise
Mechanical equipment for the Project and related projects would be required to be designed with appropriate noise-control devices, such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls, to comply with noise-limitation requirements provided in Chapter 9.16 of the SHMC. As discussed previously, the City’s existing General Plan policies would protect residents from excessive stationary noise sources and ensure new land uses meet the SHMC’s noise standards through evaluation and design considerations. Thus, stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by General Plan goals and policies and the SHMC, which limits allowable noise levels at adjacent properties. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that a significant cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative operational noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-28.) Vehicle Noise
Cumulative noise impacts due to off-site motor vehicle travel during Project operations at buildout were analyzed by comparing the projected increase in traffic noise levels from General Plan Buildout (Year 2041) Without Project conditions to General Plan Buildout (Year 2041) With Project conditions. General Plan Buildout traffic represents the future traffic volumes under buildout of the current General Plan and Housing Element. Table 4.8-15: Off-Site Roadway Traffic Noise Impacts—Cumulative of the Draft EIR presents the estimated cumulative off-site traffic noise levels. As shown in Table 4.8-15 of the Draft EIR, AM roadway noise level increases ranged from a low of 0 dBA to a high of 0.5 dBA along Walnut Avenue south of Spring Street (Intersection 6). Moreover, PM roadway noise level increases ranged from a low of 0 dBA to a high of 0.5 dBA along Walnut Avenue south of Spring Street (Intersection 6). As such, the Project would not result in a 3 dBA increase at any of the study intersections. Accordingly, cumulative roadway noise impacts due to the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-28.) N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project would result in a significant impact if it would “induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area.” The slight variation in population forecasts is not considered substantial given it would occur over an extended period (i.e., 2021 through 2029) and the housing units would be built, in part, to accommodate the existing housing shortage. Additionally, the future housing development facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element update is intended to be dispersed throughout the community to create managed levels of growth in specific areas. The City is mostly developed and existing infrastructure provides essential services citywide.

Therefore, the 2021-2029 Housing Element update would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City by identifying future actions to increase capacity for the future development of new dwelling units, as necessary to meet State housing law requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-8.) Additionally, all housing development, including the Project and any cumulative projects, would be subject to compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth-related impacts such as the California Green Building Standards Code to conserve available resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-10.) Thus, any cumulative impacts to population growth would be less than significant.

O. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project will have less than significant impacts on public services. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-7 through 4.10-13.) Although implementation of the Project in conjunction with other related projects in the area would increase the demand for public services, the Project alone would marginally increase the necessity of public services. Moreover, each cumulative project, when adopted, would be consistent with state and local regulations and would require the payment of fees for public services such as police, school, and library services. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be required to demonstrate the availability of services or mitigate accordingly; as such no cumulative impacts would occur.

P. RECREATION
The Project does not include any recreational facility. However, development of the Housing Sites would add approximately 1,355 new residents to the City. The City has assessed for foreseeable increase in population in the City and increased the parks and recreation fee accordingly to account for additional park land development. The City has plans to increase recreational facilities within the City limits. Implementation of the Housing Sites would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities outside of the existing and planned recreational facility upgrades. No adverse environmental effects are anticipated from the planned recreational facility upgrades associated with the population increase resulting from the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-3.) The Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts.

Q. TRANSPORTATION
Future development on the Housing Sites facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update would be subject to discretionary permits and would be required to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements in the 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS, City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and the City’s Municipal Code. As a result, future housing development on the Housing Sites facilitated by the Project would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-11.) In addition, each of the four Housing Sites are located within a high-quality transit area; therefore, the Housing Sites’ development may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact with implementation of the project design feature. Therefore, the Housing Sites’ development is forecast to result in no significant VMT impact based on the OPR-recommended threshold, as also adopted by the City of Long Beach, of 15% below the existing regional VMT and the project design requirements which would ensure consistency with the screening criteria. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15.) Emergency access of future proposed projects facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update would be required to meet the LACoFD standards, and the City would coordinate with the LACoFD and Signal Hill Police Department to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into each of the future housing development projects, and that adequate circulation and access (e.g., adequate turning radii for fire trucks) is provided in the traffic and circulation components of the housing developments. With these measures implemented for future development, impacts to transportation would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would comply with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulatory requirements such that impacts to transportation would be less than cumulatively considerable.

R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact tribal cultural resources. The cumulative effect of the proposed Project would be the continued loss of these resources. However, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3, which would ensure that any unknown cultural artifacts that may be unearthed during ground disturbing activities would be appropriately identified and protected. As such, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-11.) The proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact tribal cultural resources; however, it should be noted that each development proposal requiring a discretionary approval received by the City would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. In addition, applicable City ordinances and General Plan policies would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effects of additional development to tribal cultural resources within the City. Impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities exists within the City. Future Housing associated with the Project would connect to this existing infrastructure. The City’s water supplies are considered to be stable and sufficient to support expected growth that could occur over the next several years. Signal Hill sanitary sewers connect to the City of Long Beach sewer line, which flows into regional wastewater facilities maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 29. Since population growth associated with the Project is consistent with the growth projections for City, it is expected that the additional wastewater flow associated with the Project can be accommodated within existing and planned facilities. Future residential development within the City would comply with the City’s solid waste reduction programs, which are designed to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Based on the above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to utilities or service systems. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-3.) Thus, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than cumulatively considerable.

T. WILDFIRE
The City is not in or near a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), Local Responsibility Area (LRA) or State Responsibility Area (SRA). As such, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or otherwise result in wildfire impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6.0-3.) Therefore, impacts relating to wildfire would be less than cumulatively considerable.

SECTION V.

FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

The future development that could result from the Project would involve the commitment of resources necessary for construction. This could include nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels. However, the Plan is not expected to significantly increase the amount or rate of consumption of these resources as compared to existing conditions throughout the City and the region. Once established, land use patterns can be difficult to change. As such, the Project would likely commit future generations to the form of development envisioned by the Project. This commitment to a pattern of development is consistent with the vision of the City to expand housing opportunities and develop underdeveloped land with appropriate uses. As such, the commitments of resources for the Project is justified by the alignment of the Project with community goals. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-1.)
SECTION VI.

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); • Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines that that growth inducement must not be assumed. However, under the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 375, an EIR prepared for a residential or mixed-use residential project that is consistent with the general land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) is not required to reference, describe, or discuss growth inducing impacts. As the environmental effects of the Project are associated with residential and mixed-use residential development, discussion of growth-inducing impact is not required. (Draft EIR, p. 7.0-2.) SECTION VII.

ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA.

Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record.

Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.

B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR, p. ES-2) :

1. Inspire a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community through implementation of strategies and programs that will result in economically and socially diversified housing choices that preserve and enhance the special character of Signal Hill.

2. Facilitate a Variety of Housing Strategies to meet Housing Element Production Targets in a way that Complements the Existing Character of the Community.

3. Identify adequate sites to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation and the City’s housing needs.

4. Provide adequate housing stock to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate income households and special-needs groups.

5. Development regulations that remove constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

6. Maintenance and improvement of affordable housing conditions.

7. Housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.

8. Improve and preserve assisted housing developments for lower-income households.

C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
• Alternative 1- No Project/No Build Alternative (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-3) • Alternative 2 – Alternate Housing Site Locations (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-6.) • Alternative 3 – Rearranged Density of Residential Units (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8.)

1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines state: “the No Project/No Build Alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development alternative (Alternative 1), assumes the Project would not be approved and the City would continue to implement the adopted 2014 Housing Element as adopted in the General Plan.

No changes to the element would be made to address the requirements of State law. Since the adoption of the 2014 Housing Element, the City has been issued a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is required by State law to address its housing needs in an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs as well as the Land Use Map and Zoning Code would not be updated to address the City’s housing needs under this alternative. The four Candidate Housing Sites would retain their adopted General Plan and zoning designations.

Alternative 1 would result in the continuation of existing conditions and planned development of the City. No new significant environmental impacts or an increased severity of environmental impacts identified in the General Plan EIR would occur under this alternative because it would retain the existing General Plan land use designations and policy provisions. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-4.)
Impacts:

Cultural
The future development as facilitated by the No Project Alternative would be less than that of the Project. Nonetheless, the existing historic resources in the Project area could still be affected by future development not associated by the Project under a No Project Alternative. However, like the Project, following compliance with the established regulatory framework and site-specific mitigation measures, impacts could be reduced to less than significant.

Geology
The analysis of potential impacts from vacant site development throughout the City addressed geologic events, erosion and topsoil loss, unique paleontological/geological features, expansive soils, and unstable geological units or soils. All project-related impacts concerning these conditions would be reduced to less than significant through conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements. The No Project Alternative would not expose people and/or structures to potential adverse effects associated with geologic and seismic hazards, such as fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, landslides or expansive soils. As no development would occur, no construction or operational impacts to geological resources and soils would occur under the No Project Alternative and impacts would be reduced when compared to the less than significant impacts of future development facilitated by the Project.

Hazards
All project-related impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant through conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements in place for hazardous materials. As no future development would occur under this alternative, hazards associated with the existing oil infrastructure on each of the Housing Sites would not be addressed. As such, the No Project Alternative would avoid any remediation of the existing Sites and thus would not reduce impacts as compared to the Project Alternative.

Noise
Under Alternative 1, no new construction would occur on the Project site and all on-site uses would continue to operate as they currently do. Under Alternative 1, no noise or ground borne vibration impacts from construction would occur and impacts would be reduced when compared to the Project’s less than significant construction noise and vibration impacts with mitigation. The Project, as proposed, would incrementally increase long-term, traffic-related, and operational noise levels. However, these operational noise impacts would not be significant. Alternative 1 would not result in any increase in longterm, traffic-related, and operation noise levels. Thus, no operational impacts associated with noise would occur under this Alternative, and operational impacts would be reduced when compared to the Project’s less than significant impacts Tribal Cultural Resources
The level of development assumed under this Alternative would be less than that of the Project. However, the potential for impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources is associated with the ground disturbance during construction, which could happen under this Alternative with other possible development projects on-site in the future. Thus, a No Project Alternative would not avoid or reduce the significant tribal cultural resources impacts of the Project. However, like the Project, following established site-specific mitigation measures, impacts could be reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5.0-4 through

5.0-5.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: None because the No Project/No Build Alternative would retain the existing General Plan land use designations and policies, and therefore would not meet the City’s housing needs.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.

2. Alternative 2: Alternate Housing Site Locations
Description: During the planning stages of the Project, the City worked with local property owners, business owners, the local real estate community, and developers to determine a list of potential housing sites that would fit the criteria for the Project. Housing consultants also worked with the City to complete a survey of possible sites. Through this process, the following alternative sites were identified as potential candidate housing sites:

1. 700 E. Spring Street / Atlantic Avenue – SW corner at 29th Street and Atlantic Ave.

2. Creston Bluff/Commons

3. Walnut Heights - on Walnut Ave. and Crescent Heights St.

4. North Bluff

5. Pacific Coast Highway and Reservoir

6. 1450 E. 27th St. and 2655 Walnut Avenue

7. 2800 Cherry Avenue

8. Brandywine – End of Ohio St. to Temple Ave.

These sites were subsequently not selected for the Project due to a range of criteria including geologic and hazard site conditions and estimated remediation cost, size, ownership, and other community concern. (Draft DEIR, p. 5.0-6.) Impacts:

Cultural
The future development that could be accommodated by the Alternate Housing Site Locations would be similar in total to that of the Project in order to achieve the goals of the Project. The potential impacts to Cultural Resources are associated with the probability of unearthing archaeological or other as yet unknown cultural artifacts during development.

The same potential would exist on other sites within the City. Furthermore, like the Project, following compliance with the established regulatory framework and site-specific mitigation measures, these impacts would be less than significant. As such, the Alternative would have equivalent impacts to the Project.

Geology
The analysis of potential impacts from vacant site development throughout the City addressed geologic events, erosion and topsoil loss, unique paleontological/geological features, expansive soils, and unstable geological units or soils. Project-related impacts concerning these conditions would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation and conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements. The site conditions occurring on the Project sites are comparable to conditions found throughout the City. Similar impacts would likely occur on Alternate Housing Site Locations. As such, the Alternative would have equivalent impacts to the Project.

Hazards
All project-related impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures and conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements in place for hazardous materials. As future development would occur under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative, hazards associated with potential existing or past oil infrastructure on each of the potential housing sites would need to be addressed. As such, the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative would require remediation of the existing Sites and thus would have similar impacts as compared to the Project Alternative. As such, the Alternative would have equivalent impacts to the Project.

Noise
Under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative, new construction would occur on the Project site and all on-site uses would be subject to new noise and ground borne vibration. Under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative, impacts from construction would occur and impacts would be similar to the Project. The Project, as proposed, would incrementally increase long-term, traffic-related, and operational noise levels. However, these operational noise impacts would not be significant. The Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative would also result in an increase in long-term, trafficrelated, and operation noise levels. Thus, operational impacts associated with noise would occur under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative, and operational impacts would be similar when compared to the Project’s less than significant impacts. As such, the Alternative would have equivalent impacts to the Project.

Tribal
The level of development assumed under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative would be similar in comparison to the Project. With Alternative 2, there would be a similar level of development of the potential housing sites in order to increase the number of residential units in the City. The potential for impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources is associated with the ground disturbance during construction, which would happen under the Alternate Housing Site Locations Alternative. Thus, Alternative 2 would potentially increase impacts to tribal cultural resources, but would also require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant similar to the Project’s less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-7 – 5.0-8.) Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 2: Alternate Housing Site Locations would meet some but not all of the Project objectives. Alternative 2 would not meet the timeline for the potential housing sites to be considered as some would take longer than the deadline to be acquired and assessed for potential significant impacts. (Objective 1) Additionally, some of the potential sites have been ruled out based on their size and the geologic risks they would pose to future developments. (Objective 4) This alternative would propose development of potential housing sites that would require additional time to be acquired, sites that are not the optimal size, as well as sites that pose geologic risk.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Alternate Housing Site Locations, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet some of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to tribal cultural resources; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.

3. Alternative 3: Rearranged Density of Residential Units Description: Under the Rearranged Density of Residential Units Alternative (Alternative 3), the same four housing sites would be identified, however the distribution of densities between the site would change to reduce the density for the Walnut Bluff and Orange Bluff Site and increase the density for the Town Center Northwest and Heritage sites. As such, Alternative 3 would include the same quantity of dwelling units as to meet the RHNA, but in a different configuration. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8.)
Impacts:

Cultural
The future development as facilitated by the Rearranged Density Alternative would be similar to that of the Project as it would construct the same amount of units. As such, the existing historic resources in the Project area could still be affected by future development associated with the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update under the Reduced Density Alternative. However, like the Project, following compliance with the established regulatory framework and site-specific mitigation measures, these impacts would be less than significant.

Geology
The analysis of potential impacts from vacant site development throughout the City addressed geologic events, erosion and topsoil loss, unique paleontological/geological features, expansive soils, and unstable geological units or soils. All Project-related impacts concerning these conditions would be reduced to less than significant through conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements. The Rearranged Density Alternative would not expose people and/or structures to potential adverse effects associated with geologic and seismic hazards, such as fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, landslides or expansive soils. As development would occur under this alternative, construction and operational impacts to geological resources and soils would occur and would be similar to the Project. Overall, impacts would be similar to the Project when compared.

Hazards
All Project-related impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant through conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulatory requirements in place for hazardous materials. As similar future development would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative, hazards associated with the existing oil infrastructure on each of the Housing Sites would be addressed. As such, the Rearranged Density Alternative would address any remediation of the existing Sites and thus would have similar impacts as compared to the Project.

Land Use
The Project is a Housing Element Update in the 6th cycle, including housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. This means that the Housing Element as part of the City’s General Plan is being amended. By comparison, the Rearranged Density Alternative would allow for development consistent with 20212029 Housing Element Update. Under the Project and the Reduced Density Alternative, the degree of potential land use conflicts associated with future development would be similar. The Rearranged Density Alternative would develop the same number of residential units as the Project and the intensity of the future development would be similar.

There would be no intensity of development which would reduce impacts to land use other than a no project alternative. Any development on the Housing Sites would introduce new traffic, construction, and other subsequent actions associated with new development. Thus, the Rearranged Density Alternative would not reduce or increase the significant impact to land use and impacts would be less than significant.

Noise
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, new construction would occur on the Project site and all on-site uses would be subject to new noise and ground borne vibration. Under the Reduced Density Alternative, impacts from construction would occur and impacts would be similar when compared to the Project’s less than significant construction noise and vibration impacts with mitigation. The Project, as proposed, would incrementally increase long-term, traffic-related, and operational noise levels. However, these operational noise impacts would not be significant. The Rearranged Density Alternative would also result in an increase in long-term, traffic-related, and operation noise levels. Thus, operational impacts associated with noise would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative, and operational impacts would be similar when compared to the Project’s less than significant impacts.

Population and Housing
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, construction of the Project would occur; thus, potential population, housing, and employment-related impacts would be similar to those of the Project. Therefore, the Rearranged Density Alternative would have the potential to result in direct population, housing, and employment growth. Population, housing, and employment impacts would occur, and impacts would be similar when compared to the Project’s less than significant impacts.

Public Services
The Rearranged Density Alternative could generate similar demand for public services compared to the Project, given the Rearranged Density Alternative would involve similar overall residents within the development. As with the Project, construction of new public service facilities to accommodate increased demands under the Rearranged Density Alternative would not be required to meet performance standards, thus, no environmental impacts would occur in this regard. Thus, the Rearranged Density Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Project concerning public services.

Transportation
The Rearranged Density Alternative would generate similar vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to the Project. Under the Rearranged Density Alternative, future development would occur as facilitated by the Project, but with an adjusted density of dwelling units per acre. Impacts to conflicts with plans and policies, VMT guidelines, and geometric hazards would be less than significant with implementation of the Project and future development facilitated by it. Additionally, the Project would be expected to reduce VMT by including affordable housing as well as mixed-use developments. The Rearranged Density Alternative would require affordable housing within the Housing Sites. As such, impacts would still be reduced to less than significant similar to the Project.

Tribal
The level of development assumed under the Rearranged Density Alternative would be similar to that of the Project. However, the potential for impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources is associated with the ground disturbance during construction, which would happen under the Rearranged Density Alternative. Thus, the Rearranged Density Alternative would not avoid or reduce the significant tribal cultural resources impacts of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-8 through 5.0-10.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 3 would enable development in a rearranged form, which would not be possible with the allowed acreage for each site. Each site has been specifically designed for the appropriate number of residential units and mixed-use space to allow the maximum number of affordable housing units to be supplied. Therefore, Alternative 3: Rearranged Density of Residential Units would not meet the objectives of the Project in terms of supplying the maximum amount of affordable housing (Objectives 1 and 5). (Draft EIR, p. 5.0-11.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3 Rearranged Density of Residential Units, on the following ground, which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet some of the Project objectives.

D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Draft EIR, none of the Alternatives would be environmentally superior to the Project and would still achieve the objectives of the Project.

The “No Project” Alternative (Alternative 1) could have reduced levels of impact in some areas but would not avoid any of the significant impacts of the Project and would not achieve any of the City’s objectives for the Project.

The Alternative Housing Sites Alternative (Alternative 2) would not avoid any of the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not meet the timeline for the potential housing sites to be considered as some would take longer than the deadline to be acquired and assessed for potential significant impacts. Additionally, some of the potential sites have been ruled out based on their size and the geologic risks they would pose to future developments. This alternative would propose development of potential housing sites that would require additional time to be acquired, sites that are not the optimal size, as well as sites that posed geologic risk.

The Rearranged Density of Residential Units Alternative (Alternative 3) would redistribute the density within each site and would therefore result in similar impacts to the Project.

However, since development would still occur on each site, the impacts associated with development would still occur and would not be avoided by this alternative. The Project has been designed to align with the vision and principles of the City as expressed in the General Plan Update, the Municipal Code, and through the collaborative process that formulated the Project. Alternative 3 would enable development in a rearranged form, which would not be possible with the allowed acreage for each site. Each site has been specifically designed for the appropriate number of residential units and mixed-use space to allow the maximum number of affordable housing units to be supplied. Alternative 3 would not be able to meet the objectives of the Project in terms of supplying the maximum amount of affordable housing.

The potentially significant impacts of the Project are associated with existing site conditions such as subsurface cultural resources and subsurface hydrocarbon contamination or with the urban context of Signal Hill, such as noise sensitive receptors. These conditions would be present at other sites within the City. In addition, the potential impacts identified in this EIR could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Alternative scenarios would likely incorporate similar mitigations. As such, there are no Alternatives which would be environmentally superior to the Project and would still achieve the objectives of the Project.

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Signal Hill City CouncilJuly 12, 2022

Signal Hill City Council
July 12, 2022